Anda di halaman 1dari 28


This chapter provides an overview of the history of the ASME
Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code from its inception
through its incorporation of nuclear components and up to the
present. Applicable rules for certication and accreditation were
developed in parallel with the growth of the Code. From earlier
coverage of boilers and pressure vessels, the nuclear initiative
required coverage for piping, pumps, valves, storage tanks, vessel
internals, and both component and pipe supports.
The earlier Codes not within the scope of the Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code are described, including their part in the development
of the rules incorporated into the Nuclear Code in 1971. Code
implementers, including the Registered Professional Engineer as
well as the Authorized Nuclear Inspector and his or her supervisor,
are highlighted, as are the organizations that employ them.
Authorized Inspection and Quality Assurance are discussed, as well
as Inservice Inspection and its interfaces with the Construction
Code. Rules for repairs and replacements of nuclear components
and the use of newer codes are referenced, including the need for
code reconciliation and commercial grade dedication. Two exam-
ples of how Code reconciliation is used are provided.
The development of certication and accreditation are covered,
with emphasis on the new requirements for organizations seeking
ASME accreditation. The globalization of the ASME certicates
and stamps are thoroughly described.
A detailed article titled History of the ASME Boiler Code
was written by Dr. Arthur M. Greene, Jr., and was rst published
in various issues of Mechanical Engineering Magazine in 1952
and 1953. Later, it was published as a book by the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) in 1955. The following
paragraphs are excerpted from this publication [1].
As a result of the many boiler explosions experienced during
the nineteenth century, a committee was formed in 1897 under
the American Boiler Manufacturers Association (ABMA) to
develop uniform specication laws. Due to inability by some
members of the association to look beyond the interests of
their own companies, the proposed rules were not approved.
On August 30, 1907, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
approved the rst set of rules for construction of boilers proposed
by a committee headed by John A. Stevens. By 1909, the original
rules, consisting of three pages, were expanded to three parts and
approved as An Act for the Operation and Inspection of Steam
Boilers. The State of Ohio did likewise on October 24, 1911,
approving a code essentially identical to the Massachusetts rules.
This code went into effect on January 1, 1912, and Part 3 became
mandatory on July 1, 1912.
In June 1911, Col. E. D. Meier, president of the Heine Boiler
Company and a past president of the ABMA, became president of
the ASME. With the ABMA rejection still in his mind, Col. Meier
believed that a set of rules formulated by ASME, with its reputa-
tion and broad scientic interests which made it commercially
disinterested, might be accepted. In September, 1911, he asked
the Council of the ASME to approve appointment of a committee
to formulate standard specications for the construction of steam
boilers and other pressure vessels. After four years of hard work
and negotiations, better described in the above cited book, the
standard, based on the Massachusetts rules, was approved by
Council on March 12, 1915, as the Rules for the Construction of
Stationary Boilers and for Allowable Working Presssures.
The rst meeting of the Boiler Code Committee was held in
Buffalo, NY, on June 23, 1915, and among its rst considerations
was the question of Code Symbol Stamping. Authorization to use
the Code symbol would be referred to the Boiler Code Committee
for recommendation and report to the Council. The committee
also adopted the statement that the Code Symbol applied to a
boiler would indicate that the boiler had been built in full compli-
ance with the Code, and that the stamp should be applied by the
manufacturer. It is interesting to note that Code Case No. 10
asked where the Code stamp specied in par. 332 of the Code
might be obtained, and the reply was through ASME at a price
of $3 each. These were the rules for certication of boiler manu-
facturers: compliance with the code rules, and stamping the boiler
with a stamp procured from ASME.
Marcus N. Bressler
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:58 PM Page 583
584 Chapter 33
Through the years it only required a letter from the jurisdiction
(a State of the United States or a Province of Canada) to permit a
manufacturer to secure a Code Symbol Stamp. On March 2, 1922,
the Boiler Code Committee directed that a new certicate and a
consecutive number be issued to each company holding a stamp
for the purpose of registration. This registry recorded the issuance
of 222 stamps as of April 25, 1924. The minutes of the 1937 to
1940 meetings reported, for the rst time, the names of the com-
panies to which the Code Symbol Stamp had been issued or reis-
sued, with an indication of the section or sections for which these
would be used. There were 108 in 1938, 109 in 1939, and 124 in
1940. Certication remained an unstructured program for many
Nuclear energy was rst harnessed for the production of steam
to drive ship turbines in the early 1950s. The rst applications
were military; specically, they were for the propulsion of sub-
marines. The standards used for the construction of the required
equipment were necessarily developed by the U.S. Navy and also
by the contractors involved in designing and manufacturing the
nuclear power plants for early prototype submarines. The rst
commercial operating nuclear power plant, Shippingsport, placed
into service a duplicate of a ships reactor near Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. In 1958, the ASME B&PV Committee created the
Special Committee to Review Code Stress Basis, charging it with
the responsibility of developing rules for the safe construction of
pressure vessels of superior quality. Admiral Hyman Rickover
persuaded the committee to rst develop a standard for nuclear
vessels to permit the Navy to bid competitively among the nations
pressure vessel manufacturers. That action marked the rst time
that a nuclear Code would be prepared and become the global
Standard for nuclear power plant construction. It became Section
III, Nuclear Vessels, described in paragraph 33.5.
When the early commercial nuclear power plants were consid-
ered in the late 1950s, the available Codes and Standards were
those used for the construction of thermoelectric power plants,
reneries, and chemical plants. This in itself was not a problem,
as more than 60% of a nuclear power plant is essentially the same
as that of any other thermal or chemical plant in terms of its pip-
ing, vessels, pumps, valves, and supports.
The late 1950s was a period of quantum leaps. The develop-
ment of calculating equipmentfrom hand-cranked and electried
adding machines to gas-tube electronic calculators and gas-tube
computing machinesreached a high level of sophistication by
the end of the 1950s. Stress analysis techniques and the high-
speed calculations permitted by the new computers led to large
increases in the formulation of piping and vessel analyses. New
standards and revisions to existing standards took advantage of
the new tools in time for the needs of nuclear power.
A historical note may help explain the various prexes to these
standards. The American Standards Association (ASA) was reor-
ganized in 1966 as the U.S.A. Standards Institute. Standards
approved as American Standards were designated U.S.A.
Standards (USAS). In 1969, the Institute was renamed the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI); its approved
national Standards became ANSI Standards. Throughout those
years, the ASME had administrative control of its Standards
under procedures accredited by the ANSI. These are now listed as
ASME Standards; moreover, the ASME retains the sole responsi-
bility for their interpretation.
In 1955, the B31 committee decided to publish the new piping
Code in separate volumes. At the beginning of the 1960s, piping
was designed, fabricated, and installed in accordance with ASA
B31.11955. Vessels were under the scope of the ASME B&PV
Code, Section VIII (Unred Pressure Vessels), 1959 edition, sum-
mer and winter 1959 addenda.
Pumps and valves were designed and manufactured under manu-
facturers standards, with dimensional parts complying with national
standards. For example, anges for bonnet and casing covers as
well as for anged pipe connections were manufactured to the
dimensional standard ASA B16.51957. (For a history of the devel-
opment of the anges and ange tting standards, as well as rules
for nuclear valves, see ref. [2].) The pump and valve bodies and
internals were the responsibility of the manufacturer. The only
other requirements were hydrostatic tests of the bonnets and bodies
performed at 1.50 times the rating pressure at room temperature, as
developed in B16.5 or in accordance with the Manufacturers
Standardization Society of the Valve and Fittings Industry (MSS)
SP-61, Hydrostatic Testing of Steel Valves, and SP-66, Pressure
Temperature Ratings for Steel Butt-Welding End Valves. (Note:
SP denotes Standard Practice.) The ratings were based on
material specications, and their allowable stresses at temperature.
Minimum wall-thickness for valve bodies were listed in the stan-
dard, as well as dimensional standards for seven classes of pressure.
(For a history of the development of the pump rules, see ref. [3].)
Section III, Nuclear Vessels, was rst published in 1963, at
which time it was the only National Standard completely dedicated
to nuclear applications. The second edition was published in 1965;
the third, in 1968. Code editions were effective on July 1 of the
publication year and were published triennially. Semiannual
addenda were issued between Code editions and could be used
after their publication; they became mandatory six months after
issue. The publication dates were on June 30 and December 31 of
the publication year; they were referred to as Summer and Winter
addenda, respectively. Each edition was intended to include the
previous edition as modied by the six addenda published during
the triennial period ending in the next edition. The 1963 edition
only included two addenda, because the next edition was pub-
lished at the same time as the rest of the 1965 ASME B&PV Code.
The rst ASME Section III Code made provisions for the con-
struction of three classes of vessels: Class A, Class B, and Class C.
Class A rules were intended for the construction of vessels
designed to contain nuclear fuel and reactor coolant within the
reactor-coolant pressure boundary, as stated in paragraph N-131(a).
Class A vessels were designed by analysis using the maximum
shear stress theory of failure (Tresca Criterion). Primary stresses
(general membrane, local membrane, and bending) were limited by
the stress intensities allowed for design conditions. The summa-
tions of primary and secondary stresses were also determined for
the operating conditions, the results of which were compared to the
allowable design stress intensities. An extensive discussion of stress
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:58 PM Page 584
intensity classication in vessels is beyond the scope of this chap-
ter. Reference [4] provides such a discussion, as it is the commen-
tary that describes the basis for Design by Analysis in Section III
for Class A vessels. This reference was reissued in 1969, Reference
[5], and included the design criteria used in Section VIII, Division 2,
which was published in July 1968.)
Class B rules covered primarily vessels used for containment,
as noted in paragraph N-132. Class B vessels could be designed
either to the maximum stress theory used in Section VIII or, alter-
natively, to the rules of the new Section VIII, Division 2, and
were similar to Class A vessel design.
Class C rules were intended for vessels used for the auxiliary
systems in the plant not classied as either Class A or Class B
(paragraph N-133). Class C vessels could be entirely constructed
to the rules of Section VIII, Division 1.
While the ASME B&PV Code Section III was developing, the
B31 Standards Committee was reorganizing and, in keeping abreast
of current technological improvements, issued a new individual
standardUSAS B31.1.0 (in title only)in 1967 until the revision
of B31.11955 could be completed. A separate subcommittee,
which included many personnel involved in the development of
Section III, started the development of a code for nuclear piping
and another for nuclear pumps and valves. In 1968, the draft code
for pumps and valves was issued for trial use and comment; in
1969, the USAS B31.7 Code for Nuclear Piping was published.
Although the Data Report Form NP-1 referred to the Certicate of
Authorization Number for the Fabricator, the text of the B31.7 Code
made no reference to requirements for certication of the piping fab-
ricator by the ASME. It was not until the piping code was absorbed
by Section III in the 1971 edition that requirements for certication
were included and Code Symbol Stamps were established.
Section III, 1968 edition with summer 1969 addenda, intro-
duced paragraph N-153, which stated the following: Piping that
is part of a nuclear energy system and is required to be constructed
in accordance with this code, shall meet the requirements for
Class I piping of USAS B31.7, Code for Nuclear Piping. Also,
the paragraph made the provision that pumps and valves shall
meet the requirements for Class I pumps and valves of the ASME
Code for Pumps and Valves for Nuclear Power. In addition to
those references, paragraph N-153 specied that piping, pumps,
and valves would need the required inspections to be performed
by qualied inspectors, in accordance with paragraph N-612, and
also that they would need to be stamped, in accordance with para-
graphs N-811 and N-815 to N-818 (inclusive).
Section III, winter 1969 addenda, published a revision to para-
graph N-153. This claried that the requirements for inspection
and stamping applied to piping, pumps, and valves when they
were required to be constructed in accordance with this code. In
addition, the paragraph claried that this requirement applied
when the piping was classied as Class I, USAS B31.7, and also
when pumps and valves were classied as Class I, ASME Code
for Pumps and Valves.
As early as 1967, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) pub-
lished criteria for the codes and standards to be used for nuclear
plant construction. In January 1975, the AEC was renamed the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); it continued to be sensi-
tive to national standards as it always had been.
The NRC, dened by the Section III Code as the Regulatory
Authority, is responsible for administering the applicable federal
laws that are listed in Title 10, Energy of the Code of Federal
Conditions of Construction Permits, Section a, Codes and Standards.
The AEC stated in 10CFR50.55a that plants licensed before
1967 could use the ASA B31.11955 Code, addenda, and applic-
able Code Cases for piping within the reactor-coolant pressure
boundary. Later revisions of 10CFR50.55a permitted use of the
USAS B31.1.01967 Code, addenda, and applicable Code Cases,
as well as the Class I section of USAS B31.71969.
When Section III, Nuclear Vessels, was rst published in 1963,
the ASME was not ready for a formal approach to certication of
manufacturers of nuclear vessels. In a book by Wilbur Cross [6],
Melvin R. Green, Managing Director of the ASME Codes and
Standards Department, is quoted as follows:
In 1965, ASME included nuclear vessels in its Certication
Program. A certicate was issued based on a favorable report
from the authorized inspection agency and the jurisdictional
Section III introduced Mandatory Appendix IX, Quality
Control and NDE Methods, in the winter 1967 addenda. With the
revisions presented in the appendix, the ASME was now in posi-
tion to establish procedures for certication: On July 1, 1968, the
concept of nuclear survey teams became mandatory.
Prior to 1968, ASME had depended on the jurisdictional bod-
ies or inspection agencies for recommendations to use Code
Symbol Stamps. Then, in July 1968, more comprehensive
Code requirements were put into effect regarding applicants
for nuclear accreditation. These requirements introduced
Quality Assurance on a more formal basis and also initiated
the use of nuclear survey teams. Since then, requirements for
other sections of the Code evolved to require a review team;
the revisions have maintained the principle that an authorized
inspection agency must have a potential legal or insurance
interest in the nished product to be stamped with the ASME
Code symbol stamp. The inspector must assure himself that
the manufacturer conformed to the Code rules. The National
Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors (National
Board) acknowledged the value of this organizational proce-
dure for reviewing Code Stamp applicants and began to par-
ticipate in the survey teams in July 1968.
Audit teams began to visit manufacturers and their reports were
reviewed by the Subcommittee on Code Symbol Stamps.
In 1971, ASME Code Section III was renamed Nuclear Power
Plant Components and incorporated the USAS B31.71969 Code
for Nuclear Power Piping and its three addenda: ANSI
B31.7a1971 (February 16, 1971); ANSI B31.7b1971 (March 10,
1971); and ANSI B31.7c1971 (October 21, 1971). The draft
ASME Code for Pumps and Valves for Nuclear Power (dated
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:58 PM Page 585
586 Chapter 33
November 1968) and its March 1970 addenda were also included.
This Draft Code was never published as a separate ASME stan-
dard. The renamed Code provided rules for the construction of
pressure vessels, pumps, valves, piping systems, and metal con-
tainment vessels. The winter 1971 addenda added rules for atmos-
pheric storage tanks based on the American Petroleum Institute
(API) Standard 650, and 015 psig storage tanks based on API
Standard 620.
By 1973, 10CFR50.55a, paragraph (c), specied that for con-
struction permits issued before January 1, 1971, for reactors not
licensed for operation, pressure vessels which are part of the
reactor-coolant pressure boundary shall meet the requirements
for Class A vessels set forth in Section III . . . applicable on the
date of order of the vessel. Paragraph (d)(i) equally permitted
USAS B31.1.0 or USAS B31.7 editions, addenda, and applicable
Code Cases in effect on the date of order of the piping; paragraph
(d)(ii) specied B31 Code Cases N7, N9, and N10; and para-
graph (f) permitted valves to meet the requirements of B31.1.0 or
Class I rules of the draft ASME Code for Pumps and Valves for
Nuclear Power.
Federal law limited the early codes of the 1960s to plants with
construction permits that had been issued before January 1, 1971.
The permitted codes were as follows: For piping, the rules of
ASA B31 and USAS B31.1.0 were permitted, of which the earli-
est code of record was the one in effect 6 months before the
issuance of the construction permit. For pumps and valves, the
rules of ASA B31 and USAS B31.1.0 could be used, as could
those of the draft ASME Code for Pumps and Valves for Nuclear
Power and addenda in effect on the date of order; the earliest per-
mitted code of record was the one in effect 12 months before the
issuance of the construction permit. For vessels that were part of
the reactor-coolant pressure boundary, the requirements that
applied were those for Class A vessels set forth in the Section III
and applicable Code Cases and addenda in effect on the date of
order of the vessels. The earliest permitted code of record was the
one in effect 18 months before the issuance of the construction
permit. No guidance was given for Classes 2 and 3 construction
until Safety Guide 26 (later Regulatory Guide 1.26) was pub-
lished with such rules.
For construction permits issued on or after January 1, 1971, but
before July 1, 1974, 10CFR50.55a specied that the foregoing
rules still applied; however, reference was made to ASME Section
III because it now covered all the foregoing components. For con-
struction permits issued on or after July 1, 1974, the requirements
were revised to specify that Codes applied to the components
needed to be of an edition no earlier than the 1971 edition,
Section III, winter 1972 addenda. This revision required materials
for Class 1 construction to meet the new fracture toughness
requirements introduced in the summer 1972 addenda.
Since March 15, 1984, the federal rules require nuclear compo-
nents to be certied and stamped in accordance with the ASME
B&PV Code, as exemplied by most utilities specifying ASME
components for their plants while they were under construction,
as well as for replacement equipment and parts for operating
plants. These requirements are described in paragraphs (c), (d),
and (e) of 10CFR50.55a.
In 1973, the B31.7 committee issued B31 Case 115, which stip-
ulated that piping designed and constructed in accordance with
ASME Section III of the B&PV Code, including addenda and
applicable Code Cases, may be accepted as complying with the
requirements of USAS B31.71969 and applicable addenda for
the particular class of construction. ASME Section III, winter
1973 addenda, added rules for component supports (Subsection
NF), for core-support structures (Subsection NG), and for materi-
als (Subarticle NA-3700).
To make the requirements for the different classes of compo-
nents more easily understood, Section III, Division 1, was split
into seven separate volumes in the 1974 edition. Each volume was
called a subsection, and Division 1 included all the rules for the
metal components of the nuclear system. Section III, Division 2,
Code for Concrete Reactor Vessels and Containments, was pub-
lished in 1975 as a separate volume. It contained the rules of con-
struction for concrete reactors and containment vessels as well as
the requirements for containment metallic liners; it referenced
Division 1 and its appendices as required. Note that Division 2
includes its own appendices, so one must be careful in using this
Code. A referenced Division 1 appendix will state that it is part of
Division 1; otherwise, a referenced appendix will be to the
Division 2 volume.
In the 1977 edition, the General Requirements for Division 2
(identied as CA) were put into the same volume as the General
Requirements for Division 1 (identied as NA). In the summer
1977 addenda, the two sets of General Requirements were com-
bined into one set identied as NCA, and NA-3700 was renum-
bered as NCA-3800. The purpose of this change was to consolidate
the Code and, more important, to show the close relationship
between various parties in the construction of Code components for
a nuclear plant. Every plant with concrete reactor vessels or con-
crete containments has other components that are made of steel. In
fact, all Division 2 concrete reactors and containments have steel
parts that must meet some of the requirements of Division 1.
By 1976, the Code Cases that were referenced as applicable to
Sections III or XI numbered well over 175. The Nuclear Code
Cases were removed from the B&PV Code Cases, and both were
published in separate volumes in 1977. The Nuclear Code Cases
were listed with both the 4-digit number from the 1974 edition (in
parentheses), as well as the new N-XXX number, but only during
the three years of the 1977 edition. Recently, the ASME B&PV
Main Committee ordered that cases be incorporated into the Code
or otherwise annulled or permitted to expire.
In 1977, the Committee authorized the publication of Inter-
pretations in separate volumes. These books were published every
six months and included all of the Interpretations issued for each
section of the Code. Initially, they were sold separately from the
Code (eleven volumes were issued altogether), but sales were dis-
appointing. To ensure that all users of the Code had access to
these Interpretations, they were published with each addenda
beginning with volume 12 in the summer 1983 addenda. The
1986 edition was the rst in which the entire Code had addenda
published only once every year. It was decided to continue pub-
lishing the Interpretations every six months. (Although many
organizations involved in Code activities consult the
Interpretations to resolve problems, they cannot be used to change
the Code: inquiries to do so generally result in a Code revision or
a new Code Case.) Volume 57 was published in December 2004;
it includes three indexes: a subject index for the new volume
proper; a key word-type subject index for volumes 12 through 57;
and a cumulative numerical index. The Interpretations of
Section III, Divisions 1 and 2, are included with the update
service to Subsection NCA.
Beginning with the 2004 Edition, Interpretations of
the Code will be distributed annually in July with the issuance
of the edition and subsequent addenda. Interpretations previ-
ously distributed in January will be posted in January at
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:58 PM Page 586
distribution. The next Volume will be number 58.
Appendices to Section III were included from its inception as
a Vessel Code. In the 1971 edition, all sections and appendices
of the Nuclear Code were included in one volume, and in the
1974 edition, Subsection NA and Appendices were printed in
the same book. Because of their signicant size increase, the
Appendices were published in the 1977 edition in a volume sep-
arate from NCA.
Appendices are classied as either Mandatory or Non-
Mandatory. Mandatory Appendices are titled by Roman numerals
and include topics such as allowable design stress intensities,
allowable stresses, material properties, and design charts for
external pressure (these were moved in the 1992 edition to
Section II, Part D), as well as stress analysis techniques; design
rules for bolted ange connections and at heads with large open-
ings; and other Code design and administrative rules. Non-
Mandatory Appendices are titled by capital letters and include
stress analysis and dynamic analysis methods; rules for such
specic design details as at-face anges, bolt cross-sectional
area, and clamp connections); guidelines for the preparation of
Design Specications and Reports; lowest service temperature
determination and protection against nonductile failure; evalua-
tion of service loadings in the faulted condition; and guidelines to
fabrication controls. When they are specied in the Design
Specications, Non-Mandatory Appendices become mandatory.
The Registered Professional Engineer (RPE) who certies a
Design Report as accurate and complete is responsible for recon-
ciling the design drawings and any changes thereto with his or her
Design Report. The Design Report must be provided to the
Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI), although the Inspector is not
responsible for its accuracy or even for reviewing it. The RPE
who certies an Owners Design Specication is probably the
person best qualied to perform the required Owners Review of
the Design Report (NCA-3260); however, he or she is not
required to certify the performance of the review. Revisions to
Design Specications and Reports must be recertied. The RPE
certifying either document does not need to be from a different
design organization, but he or she must be independent from the
specic activity.
Initially, the Code did not address how competency in a eld of
design could be veried. The Board on Nuclear Codes and
Standards organized the Main Committee on Qualications and
Duties for Authorized Nuclear Inspection and Specialized
Professional Engineers (N626). The rst standard covering
qualication of RPEs was issued in 1978; in the 1980 edition,
summer 1980 addenda, Section III adopted N626.31979, requir-
ing review by Owners or N-Certicate Holders of the credentials
of RPEs as well as the maintenance of his or her expertise once
every three years. Survey teams expect to see an RPEs self-
evaluation of qualication at least once annually.
Section III, 1995 edition with A95 addenda, refers to N626.3
1993. It provides guidance to the RPE by listing the paragraph
numbers of each subsection for which he or she should have
working, hands-on knowledge and those for which he or she
should have general knowledge. This Standard became Appendix
XXIII in the 1996 addenda and has since been annulled.
The ASME system uses an independent third party to inspect
work performed to ascertain that nuclear parts, appurtenances,
and components meet the requirements of the ASME B&PV
Code. This party is represented by the Authorized Nuclear
Inspector (ANI), who is the key to success of the ASME Code.
He or she is truly independent because he or she cannot be an
employee of the two parties most interested in the construction of
the component: the Owner and the Certicate Holder. He or she
works for an Authorized Inspection Agency (AIA) designated by
or acceptable to the appropriate Enforcement Authority.
The ANI has experience and background in the inspection of
nuclear components and, in addition, is knowledgeable of both
the Nuclear Code and Quality Assurance. The duties and respon-
sibilities of the ANI are detailed in NCA-5220. The qualication
requirements for the ANI and the Authorized Nuclear Inspector
Supervisor (ANIS) were originally listed in ANSI N626.01974
for Division 1 and ANSI N626.21976 for Division 2. The three
Standards, including N626.11975 for Inservice Inspection, were
combined in 1985 into one Standard: N626 Qualications and
Duties for Authorized Nuclear Inspection Agencies and
Personnel. The ANI and the ANIS are tested and commissioned
by the National Board and must be qualied according to ASME
N6261990 and addenda N626a1991. For Division 2, the ANI
and ANIS must meet the requirements of Part N626.2 and have
experience in the activities required for the placement of structur-
al concrete. The AIA is required to meet ANSI N6261990 and
addenda N626a1991, Parts N626.0 and N626.2, of that Standard.
The ANI monitors the Quality Assurance Program and veries
compliance with the Code by the Certicate Holder. He or she
veries that the Certicate Holder has the necessary and up-to-date
Codes and addenda, that the Design Specications and the Design
Report are available and properly certied, and that the Owners
Review of the Design Report has been received by the manufac-
turer. He or she veries that the materials used com-ply with the
Code requirements, that proper welding procedures are used, and
that welders are properly qualied. Another requirement is to
ensure that Non-Destructive Examination (NDE) procedures are
acceptable and that the NDE personnel are qualied. He or she
veries that design calculations have been prepared when Design
Reports are not required and, in addition, veries and certies that
(to the best of his or her knowledge) the component or part is in
full compliance with the Code. The integrity of the ASME pro-
gram using Authorized Inspectors has been demonstrated for over
85 years.
If any questions regarding Code compliance are encountered,
they can be answered by the ANI. A Code decision by an ANI
must be accepted; otherwise, the same question must be asked of
his or her supervisor (the ANIS) or of his or her employer (the
AIA). The question may also be posed to the ASME; it should fol-
low the provisions of Appendix XX. Interpretations cannot be
obtained from individual committee members or from any other
party; only the B&PV Committee can issue ofcial Interpretations.
Before the initial application, and during the three years
between ASME surveys, the ANIS is responsible to review and
accept all changes to the Quality Assurance Manual. No changes
to the program are to be implemented until acceptance by the
ANIS. For certicates having a scope that includes the manufac-
ture and supply of material, the ANIS is required to audit this por-
tion of the program annually. Also, he or she is required to per-
form semiannual audits of both the ANI performance by ASME
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:58 PM Page 587
588 Chapter 33
N626 and the status of the Certicate Holders Quality Assurance
Program. The A92 addenda approved the N626a1991 addenda to
ASME N6261990. This revision introduced N626.4, requiring
nuclear AIAs to be accredited by the ASME (NCA-5121); this
requirement became mandatory on July 1, 1993, and nuclear
AIAs are currently accredited.
This Standard was replaced by QAI-11995, Qualications for
Authorized Inspection. This document introduced Part 5, which
requires accreditation of AIAs who provide boiler and pressure
vessel insurance and inspection services. An addenda was issued in
April 30, 1996, QAI-1-1a1996. It was followed by another adden-
da, QAI-1-1b1999, issued on April 10, 2000. The N626
Committee was also renamed the QAI Main Committee, which
now serves under the supervisory Board on Conformity Assessment.
The latest Edition was published in April 15, 2003, as QAI-12003.
Three Code Cases were issued in the 1995 edition, and one
with the 2003 edition. Interpretations are included with the edi-
tion and addenda. With the publication of the 2003 Edition there
will no longer be addenda issued, only Editions.
The rules of Section III are very comprehensive regarding the
duties and responsibilities of all parties involved in the construc-
tion of each component. Once the component has been classied,
it is the duty of all parties involved to ensure that all the Code
rules for design and construction have been met.
These parties are the following:
The Owner (generally the licensing utility).
The N-Type Certicate Holders: N, NV, NA, NPT and NS.
The Quality System Certicate (Materials) Organizations: MOs.
The AIA and its employees: the ANSI and ANSIs.
The Enforcement Authority: municipality, U.S. State, or
Canadian Province.
The Regulatory Authority: NRC.
The Quality Assurance (QA) Program is an integral part of the
Nuclear Code. All parties are required to have such a system, for
it is used for verication of Code compliance. In addition, it is
extremely helpful in the manufacturing process because it consti-
tutes a detailed program for doing work properly. Thus a good
Quality Assurance Program saves both time and money; it enables
the Certicate Holder to do the work correctly.
Section III introduced Mandatory Appendix IX, Quality
Control and NDE Methods, in the winter 1967 addenda. On April
17, 1969, the AEC published a proposed amendment to 10CFR50
that would add an Appendix B, Quality Assurance Requirements
for Nuclear Power Plants. Appendix B was issued ofcially on
June 27, 1970.
In May 1969, the N45 Committee, Reactor Plants and Their
Maintenance, established an ad hoc Committee on Quality
Assurance Program Requirements, composed of AEC representa-
tives and key segments of the nuclear industry. In 1970, a new
N45-2 Subcommittee on Nuclear Quality Assurance Standards
was formed to provide for the preparation, coordination, and
approval of the N45.2 series Standards, which resulted in the ini-
tial issue of ANSI N45.21971.
In the 1971 edition of ASME Section III, the Quality Assurance
Program requirements were included in NA-4000. The N45.2
Committee indicated in its Foreword that these requirements were
consistent with the requirements of their Standard. There were many
problems in interpreting the coverage, for the criteria were not as
numerous as the 18 criteria of 10CFR50 Appendix B, Quality
Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing
Plants. Finally, in the 1977 edition, the winter 1978 addenda revised
NCA-4000 to match the 18 criteria of 10CFR50 Appendix B.
During that time, another Main Committee under the Board on
Nuclear Codes and Standardsthe Committee on Nuclear Quality
Assurancecompleted review of the ANSI N45.2 series of docu-
ments and issued the rst edition of ANSI/ASME NQA-11978,
Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants.
NQA-1 incorporated some of the ANSI/ASME N45.21977
daughter Standards:
N45.2.6, Qualification of Inspection, Examination, and
Testing Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants.
N45.2.9, Requirements for the Collection, Storage, and
Maintenance of Quality Assurance Records for Nuclear
Power Plants.
N45.2.10, Quality Assurance Terms and Denitions.
N45.2.11, Quality Assurance Requirements for the Design of
Nuclear Power Plants.
N45.2.12, Requirements for Auditing of Quality Assurance
Programs for Nuclear Power Plants.
N45.2.13, Quality Assurance Requirements for Control of
Procurement of Items and Services for Nuclear Power Plants.
N45.2.23, Qualication of Quality Assurance Program Audit
Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants.
NQA-1 was reviewed by Section III for some time. After three
years, the 1979 edition of NQA-1 was adopted in the winter 1982
addendawith many exclusions, primarily Supplement 2S-2, and
instead retained NX-5500 for qualication of NDE personnel.
Several editions of NQA-1 have been adopted by Section III.
The A91 addenda approved ASME NQA-11989 edition and
1a1989 addenda, Quality Assurance Program Requirements for
Nuclear Facilities, and the A92 addenda added the 1b1991
addenda, as modied and supplemented in NCA-4134. The 2006
Addenda approved NQA-11994, which has also been accepted
by the NRC.
NQA-12008 has been reviewed by both ASME and NRC, and
may be approved in the near future, with some exclusions.
Lawrence Sage provided a history of the development of Section
XI in ref. [7]. He recounted that there were no inservice inspection
requirements for nuclear equipment beyond that mandated by state
boiler and pressure vessel laws and insurance requirements. In
1967, the ANSI and ASME established the American Standards
Committee N45, Reactor Plants and Their Maintenance, to develop
these rules. In 1969, the AEC announced its intention to require
inservice inspection at all new nuclear power plants.
The results of this work were rst published in 1970 as ASME
B&PV Code Section XI, Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Reactor
Cooling Systems. Section XI includes rules for inservice inspec-
tion, examinations, repairs, alterations, and replacements for those
nuclear components until the nuclear power system is taken out of
service. It began as the nuclear equivalent of Sections VI and VII
and the National Board Inspection Code for boilers and pressure
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:58 PM Page 588
In June 1971, the AEC made the requirements of Section XI
mandatory for all nuclear power plants with construction permits
issued on or after January 1, 1971. In February 1976, the NRC
made Section XI mandatory for all nuclear power plants. Sages
article provides a good summary of the changes that have
occurred in this Code from 1970 to 1992.
Section XI now provides inspection rules for three different
nuclear cooling systems in three divisions. Rules for inservice
testing of pumps and valves have been moved to the Operations
and Maintenance (O&M) Standards; they are no longer contained
in Section XI. In service testing of snubbers has also been moved.
The rules of Section III are applicable during the construction
of components by their Manufacturers, including their installation
at the nuclear plant site. Section XI rules are applicable after the
completion and stamping of the component or after its installation
at the nuclear plant site. The two Codes operate in parallel during
the later years of the construction cycle (as partial and completed
systems are turned over to the start-up organizations at the con-
struction site for calibration of instruments), to provide water-
coolant ow for pumps and rotating machinery, and also to famil-
iarize the operating personnel with the equipment.
There are no accreditation requirements for organizations
working under the provisions of Section XI. However, when the
ISI work plan calls for replacement of components with Code
SymbolStamped components or the addition of a complete new
system, the rules for Section III and its accreditation requirements
apply. The work plan can specify the original Construction Code
or any other Code of record.
Owen F. Hedden described ASME Section XI as providing the
rules for examinations, test, analyses, and repairs to ensure that
structural integrity of the primary coolant pressure boundary is
maintained [8]. Whereas all other sections of the Code are direct-
ed toward the activities of equipment manufacturers, Section XI is
the only mandatory section of the Code that is directed toward the
postconstruction activities of the power plant Owner/Operator.
Deardorff et al. state the following about Section XI [9]:
[It] contains rules and requirements for inservice inspection,
testing, evaluation, and repairs to operating nuclear plants.
Section XI denes the inspection interval and inspection loca-
tions such that fatigue cracking (or other material degradation
mechanisms) would be detected in a timely manner. If cracking
is detected, then evaluation criteria are provided for determining
if continued operation is acceptable, or if repairs/replacements
are required.
Metrow, in ref. [10], describes the development of the
Enforcement Authoritys involvement in Section XI activities,
including review of repair plans. The 1970 edition contained
requirements for a repair program, but details on content were
missing, and the summer 1973 addenda introduced repair pro-
grams for reactor vessels only. Section XI combined replacements
with repairs until well into the 1974 edition. The summer 1976
addenda separated replacements into a separate article: IWA-7000.
The winter 1985 addenda established the requirement for a doc-
umented replacement program. Repair programs were described in
the various articles, but it was not until the 1989 addenda that
details of the content, scope, and other aspects intended for inclu-
sion into the repair program were written into one central location.
The A91 addenda consolidated the replacement requirements
from IWA-7000 into IWA-4000. The rules for repair and replace-
ment are located in Section XI, IWA-4000, 1992 edition. This was
done as a result of a feasibility study begun in 1986. Gimple pro-
vided an excellent description of the current changes and plans
for future revisions in ref. [11].
Signicant changes were introduced in the 1992 addenda that
provided alternative requirements in paragraph IWA-4122 for
NPS 1 Class 1 piping, tubing (except heat-exchanger tubing,
sleeves, and welded plugs), valves, ttings, and associated sup-
ports and other criteria described in IWA-4121.
The alternative requirements include exclusions from NCA-
3800, Certicate of Authorizations (and, obviously, Code Symbol
Stamping), and agreements with AIAs. The Owners QA Program
provides measures for assurance that material is furnished in
accordance with the Material Specications and applicable
requirements of Section III.
Pressure testing, AIA participation, and completion of the NIS-2
Data Report Forms are not required for the installation of these
As a result of the lessons learned from the Three Mile Island
(Middletown, Pennsylvania) accident, many items have been
added to operating plants to prevent recurrence of similar events.
Unless specied by the NRC, retrotting is not a code require-
ment. In fact, many codes and standards clearly state that this
standard is not retroactive. It also should be understood that a
plant license is pegged to an effective Code, and changes intro-
duced in later Codes are not required by the Construction Code or
the plant operating license.
As described in the preceding paragraph, the NRC permits the
use of older Codes and Standards. Even today, the Regulatory
Authority accepts repair and replacement plans that refer to the
original Construction Code. It is therefore imperative that the
Code specied for the repairs, replacements, and mandatory back-
ts be carefully reviewed for acceptability and for impact on the
fabrication and installation schedules.
It must by now be self-evident that knowledge of the operating
plants effective Codes is of paramount importance in properly
selecting original Codes for repair or replacements. Availability
of replacement items (material, parts, or components) depends on
the continued presence of the original manufacturer or fabricator.
The brief summations of original Codes in this chapter do not
provide enough information on specic requirements that would
permit the use of reduced requirements on organization certica-
tion, material quality assurance, or procedure qualication. Doing
so can be achieved only through careful review of the original
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:58 PM Page 589
590 Chapter 33
Construction Codes or by general knowledge of the requirements of
current Codes to permit use of later editions and addenda.
The two examples shown in Sections 33.18 and 33.19 involve a
plant representative for most of the operating plants with con-
struction permits awarded before January 1, 1971. The require-
ments of the Construction Code were used to justify questions
and ndings raised by Inspectors during review of the work
progress against the work plans.
In maintaining the operating status of a power plant, it is often
necessary to procure material, parts, and components as part of
plant repairs and replacements. If like-for-like replacement mater-
ial, parts, and components can be procured, reconciliation may
not be required. However, because nuclear power plants encom-
pass a period of over 30 years, it may no longer be possible to
nd like-for-like replacements. Both Sections III and XI make
provisions for the use of later editions and addenda of the Codes
because the Codes are revised every year (before the 1986 edition
for Section III and the 1983 edition for Section XI, they were
revised twice each year). Owners are often forced to buy replace-
ment items to the Code currently in effect.
Section III, Divisions 1 and 2, Subsubarticle NCA-1140, per-
mits the use of specic provisions of later editions and addenda if
all related requirements are met. It also permits the use of existing
material procured before the Code effective date for the compo-
nent with certain provisos. These provisos are: the mutual consent
of the Owner or Owners designee and the N-Certicate Holder,
and acceptance of their use must be made by the Enforcement and
Regulatory Authorities having jurisdiction at the site. NCA-3554
also requires that the Owner reconcile the Design Report when
any modication of a document affects the design.
Since the summer 1976 addenda, Section XI, IWA-7210(c),
requires reconciliation by the Owner of the use of any provisions
of later editions or addenda not specied in the Design
Specications for design, fabrication, and examination of a
replacement. Mechanical interfaces, ts, and tolerances that pro-
vide satisfactory performance are not to be changed; moreover,
new materials must be compatible with the installation and sys-
tem requirements. These requirements are now in IWA-4170
beginning with the 1992 edition. Future revisions to this subsub-
article will clarify the requirements for reconciliation.
Reconciliation has frequently consisted of a detailed and onerous
comparison of every revision, however minor, that has occurred
between the Code of Record and the Code being reconciled. Each
utility is compelled to repeat the reconciliation process for each
item. Commercial programs are available to simplify this process.
To the best of this authors knowledge, no U.S. state or any
Canadian province has yet objected to the use of any Code edition
or addenda. Except for the time in which the NRC did not accept
the ASME Section XI aw size, all editions and addenda through
the 1998 edition and including the 1998, 1999 and 2000 addenda
have been accepted by the NRC; in fact, the 2001, 2002 and 2003
Addenda edition were incorporated by reference in a nal amend-
ment to 10 CFR 50.55a which was published on October 1, 2004
(69 FR 58804). This rule became effective on November 1, 2004.
NRC staff is completing the technical bases for the amendment to
10 CFR 50.55a to endorse the 2004 Edition. The proposed rule is
scheduled to be published for public comment in the last quarter
of 2005.
THE 1970s
33.18.1 Statement of the Problem
Feedwater nozzles in Westinghouse steam generators were
examined under the Southeastern Electric Cooperative (SEC)
Section XI program and were determined to have sustained severe
cracking that required weld repairs. An IWA4000 program was
written and submitted to the Authorized Nuclear Inservice
Inspector (ANII) for approval; preparations for weld repairs were
then initiated. A foreign repair organization, not holding any
ASME accreditation, was engaged to do the repairs. The weld ller
metal was not procured to the requirements of NCA-3800, nor had
it been qualied in accordance to Section IX. The ANII, reviewing
the progress of the repairs, took the position that the work package
did not meet SEC commitments and that the welding did not meet
Code. He indicated that a nonconformance should be identied and
resolved before he would sign off on the NIS-2 Data Report Form.
33.18.2 Background
Example Nuclear Plant (ENP) is a Codes and Standardstransition
plant because of its licensing chronology. Criteria for material
procurement at ENP are dependent on whether the material is
intended for components procured by the SEC or intended for
components supplied by the Nuclear Steam Supply System
(NSSS) vendor under his scope. This position paper will establish
the basis for material procurement at ENP for NSSS-supplied
components by using the Westinghouse steam generators to repre-
sent typical ASME Section III components. The bid specication
for ENP was completed in late 1967; the NSSS contract was
awarded to Westinghouse on April 18, 1968. Most of the nuclear
equipment procured by Westinghouse had a Code of Record of
ASME Section III Nuclear Vessels, 1968 edition.
The construction permit for ENP was granted on October 1,
1969. At that time of nuclear plant construction, the AEC was
forced to accept a commercial Code such as USAS B31.1.01967
as the Construction Code for power piping. In addition, it accept-
ed B31 Code Cases specically intended for nuclear applications.
The various Code requirements were specied in the Federal
The component contracts that Westinghouse awarded resulted
in the ordering of items for Westinghouses scope of supply in
mid-1968. This established the 1968 edition, ASME Section III,
Nuclear Vessels as the Code of record for the reactor pressure
vessels, pressurizers, and steam generators. The certication sheet
of the steam generator stress report states the 1968 edition of
Section III, which veries the foregoing assumption.
As for piping, pumps, and valves, the SEC continued its estab-
lished practice of placing a contract with a piping fabricator. It
expanded this contract to cover the procurement of pumps, valves,
component and piping supports, and loose material for eld fabri-
The principal piping systems and appurtenances contract at
ENP was awarded to National Valve & Manufacturing Company
(NAVCO) on August 26, 1970 (SEC Reference No. 71C-37-92615).
The USAS B31.7 Code had been approved on August 24, 1969.
For main steam piping, the SEC selected B31.1.01967 and
In these examples, both the name of the utility and the affected nuclear power
plant have been disguised, as well as the names of personnel listed.
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:58 PM Page 590
labeled it as non-QA but specied B31.7 for fabrication and test-
ing for all other piping.
The rest of this discussion will consider the Code of Record for
the steam generator as ASME Section III, 1968 edition. For pip-
ing, it will consider USAS B31.71969 without addenda because
all B31.7 addenda were issued after August 26, 1970. Steam Generators: Code Requirements Paragraph
N-141, Design Specication only covered functions, loadings,
environmental conditions, and classication; no material require-
ments were addressed. Paragraph N-142, Stress Report also failed
to address materials. The Authorized Inspector duties listed in
paragraph N-143 included ascertaining that the vessel or part was
constructed in accordance with approved drawings and the
Design Specication, using materials complying with the relevant
Material Specications. In paragraph N-144, the manufacturers
responsibility included that related to the identication of correct
materials and valid material certication.
Paragraph N-151 established that the jurisdiction of Section III
terminated at the limit of reinforcement given by N-454(b) but not
closer to the main shell than the rst circumferential joint, exclu-
sive of the connecting weld in welded connections. A further
requirement stated that where connected piping differs from the
vessel in nominal thickness or coefcient of thermal expansion,
the joint was to be analyzed as a vessel joint.
The connecting weld at the feedwater nozzle bridges a very
large difference in nominal thickness between the nozzle and the
piping because of the difference in material specied tensile and
yield strengths. The nozzle is made of quenched and tempered
SA-508 Class 2 material, with an allowable design stress intensity
of 26.7 ksi at the design temperature of 600F. The pipe material
is made of SA-333 Grade 6, ASTM A 333 Grade 6, or ASTM A
106 Grade B material, all of which have an allowable design
stress intensity of 17.3 ksi. The inverse ratio of stresses results in
a calculated pipe thickness 1.5 times the nozzle thickness at the
design pressure of 1,085 psig.
The joint needed a transition dutchman or a special com-
pound-bore nozzle, wherein the vesselside ID narrowed to the
pipe ID using a tapered transition to reduce discontinuity stresses.
The SEC chose to transition using an intermediate piece of SA-
508 Class 2 material that was shop-welded to the rst pipe spool
by means of a qualied P3-to-P1 weld procedure specication.
The eld weld then became an essentially uniform wall-thickness
P3-to-P3 weld. If the eld weld was within the reinforcement
limit, then the weld had to meet Section III requirements. If it was
located outside of the reinforcement limits, it was a piping weld
and had to meet either B31.7 or B31.1.0 requirementsbased on
the Code Class listed in the NAVCO contract.
The material requirements in ASME Section III, 1968 edition,
are listed in Article 3, Materials. Paragraph N-310 required that
pressure-boundary material or material welded thereto used
under the rules of Subsection A shall conform to the requirements
of one of the specications for materials in Tables N-421, N-422,
and N-423. . . . All special requirements of Article 3 applicable
to the product form (plate, forging, tube, pipe, etc.) had to be met.
The Material Manufacturer was required to satisfy all the
requirements of the Material Specications and those of Article 3
in addition to certifying the completion of all activities that were
performed. The Manufacturer had to include certied reports of
any required tests, inspections, and repairs made on the materials
(paragraph N-312). Paragraph N-511 required that the vessel man-
ufacturer certify compliance with the special requirements of
Article 3 for any activity that was performed, and to certify reports
of all tests and examinations that were made on the material.
The requirements for welding material were described in para-
graph N-511.3, which specied that tests shall be conducted for
each lot of covered or ux-cored electrodes, for each heat of bare
electrode and for each combination of heat of bare electrode and
batch of ux mix to be used for vessel welding. The tests were
required to be made in accordance with paragraph N-511.4 or
N-511.5; the results had to conform to the minimum requirements
of those paragraphs. Paragraph N-512 (Material Identication)
required that pressure-part material carry identication markings
until the vessel was completed; therefore, an as-built sketch or a
tabulation of materials had to be prepared to identify each piece
of material with the mill test report (MTR) or coded marking
(if such was used).
Although Section III, paragraph N-512, did not specically
address weld metal identication, paragraph N-523(b) specied
that the manufacturer is responsible for control of the welding
electrodes . . . suitable identication, storage, and handling of
electrodes, ux, and other welding materials shall be maintained.
It was not until the summer 1970 addenda that any quality pro-
grams for materials were specied. The requirements of the new
paragraph N-335 were later incorporated in NX-2600 in the 1971
edition, where they remained until NA-3700 was introduced in
the winter 1973 addenda.
To summarize, it can be stated that for Section III (Nuclear
Vessels), Material Manufacturers did not have to be accredited,
material did not have to be manufactured to a written QA program,
and the only requirements were provision of the MTR (certifying
that the material complied with the requirements of the Material
Specications) and also certication by the material and/or vessel
manufacturer that all the special requirements of Article 3 for pres-
sure-boundary material and Article 5 for welding material had been
met. Another provision was providing identication of base metal
and welding material traceable to the MTR or other test results. Piping Systems: Code Requirements If the rst
circumferential weld was a piping weld, the applicable Code was
USAS B31.71969. The requirements for piping were very simi-
lar to those of Section III, 1968 edition, for vessels. Paragraph 700
required a Design Specication; 700(d) required the manufacturer,
fabricator, and erector to provide materials complying with the
requirements of this Code and Design Specication. Paragraph
700(e) required MTRs to be retained by the Owner for the life of
the plant, and paragraph 700.1.4 included the rst circumferential
weld joint external to the vessel under B31.7s jurisdiction.
Chapter 1-III, B31.71969, listed all the requirements for materi-
als for this Code. Paragraph 1-723.1.1 stated that material shall
conform to the requirements of Table 1-724 and Division 1-724 that
apply to the material product form. Paragraph 1-723.1.2 required a
certication from the material manufacturer that all the requirements
of the Material Specications were complied with and all special
requirements of the chapter fullled. Certifying that the material met
these requirements had to be done, and a certied report of the
results of all required tests, examinations, and repairs performed on
the materials and their identication had to be included.
Paragraph 1-723.1.3 required each piece of pipe, each tting,
and any component part to be clearly identied, as described in
(a), (b), or (c) of the paragraph. Paragraph 1-725.5 described the
identication requirements for welding material.
The only references to brittle fracture in B31.71969 were found
in paragraph 1-723.2.3, which warned about low temperatures,
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:58 PM Page 591
592 Chapter 33
and in paragraph 1-737.3(g), where the standard indicated a warn-
ing that hydrostatic pressure tests should be conducted at a uid
temperature of 60F and higher for material whose resistance to
brittle fracture at low temperature had not been enhanced. This
requirement was similar to what was traditionally listed in Section
I, Power Boilers, and Section VIII, Unred Pressure Vessels70F
and 60F, respectivelyfor minimum hydrostatic test temperature.
The fabricator and erector were required to certify that the
materials used complied with all the requirements of Chapter 1-
III, as shown in paragraph 1-727.2. Paragraph 1-727.2 permitted
ller metal not incorporated in Section IX to be used if a proce-
dure qualication test was rst successfully made in accordance
with Section IX.
It was not until the ANSI B31.7b1971 addenda, dated April 1,
1971, that Appendix I was introduced. Paragraph I-104.4
described the requirements for C
-Notch impact testing of welds.
It was also in the B31.7b1971 Addenda that a paragraph was
added: 1-727.5.7, which required additional welding qualications
for weld procedure qualication tests for materials with impact
test requirements.
USAS B31.71969 did not have any requirements for
qualication of Material Manufacturers, nor did it have any for
written quality control programs. To summarize, the material
requirements for USAS B31.71969 were less stringent than
those for Section III, Nuclear Vessels, 1968 edition. They
required certied MTRs to certify compliance with the require-
ments of the Material Specications, and certication by the fab-
ricator or erector that the materials comply with all requirements
of Chapter 1-III and of Section IX.
33.18.4 Conclusions
The ller metal used in the connection welds to the steam-
generator feedwater nozzle is acceptable under the provisions of
Section XI, which permit the use of the original Construction
Code for repairs.
The ller metal should be procured in identied containers or
spools; the weld deposit should be tested as required by Section III,
1968 edition, and/or by Section IX; and a welding procedure
qualication test should be performed to show successful compli-
ance with Code requirements.
The ller Material Manufacturers MTR, the certication by the
repair organization of the results of the chemical and mechanical
tests of the deposited weld metal as meeting the requirements of
the Code, and the records of the weld procedure qualication test
and welder performance tests for the welders making the feedwater-
nozzle welds, should all be presented to the ANII for review
before the NIS-2 Data Report Form is accepted and certied.
If the steam generator is not to be subjected to another full-pres-
sure test, the hydrostatic pressure test requirements of Section XI
may be used in lieu of the 1.25 times design pressure of paragraph
1-737.4. Alternatively, the helium mass spectrometer test or halide
leak test of paragraph 1-737.1(b) (more fully described in para-
graph 1-737.1.3) may be used if it is acceptable to the ANII. It
would then be followed by a Section XI system leak test.
33.19.1 Statement of the Problem
In reviewing material documentation at the ENP, the ANII
identied a problem with piping supports material documentation.
His interpretation of the SECs material procurement commit-
ments was that material for load-bearing supports should be pro-
cured with at least the Material Manufacturers ASME Section III
Certicate of Compliance (COC). With the plant attempting to
return on line after an extended outage, any delay in establishing a
material verication program would have resulted in an unaccept-
able time delay in the return schedule. This investigation is intended
to identify the Code requirements and the applicable SEC commit-
ments, as well as to justify the use of commercial grade material if
it is permitted for pipe supports.
33.19.2 Background
Before addressing the resolution of the problems presented by
various ENP Problem Evaluation Reports (PERs) on component
support materials, it is important to establish the requirements of
the Codes and Standards involved, as well as list the commit-
ments made by the SECs Division of Engineering Design (DED)
during the early years of the ENPs construction.
The Codes and Standards rst employed in the design and con-
struction of the ENP were ASME Section III, Nuclear Vessels,
1968 edition, for vessels and pumps, and also USAS B31.1.01967
(B31.1.0) for piping and valves. With the publication of USAS
B31.71969, Nuclear Power Piping, the ENP piping design con-
tinued in accordance with B31.1.0. Fabrication and testing in
accordance with B31.7 were selected for systems associated with
the reactor-coolant pressure boundary. Supports for piping and
components were not covered in a separate standard as they are
today in ASME Section III, Division 1, Subsection NF, Component
Supports. Vessel supports were covered by the vessel Design
Specication and were constructed with the same rules used for
the pressure-retaining component. Large pumps and valves were
individually supported, using the design rules associated with ves-
sel supports. Valves and pumps installed in the piping system
transferred their weight to the piping and its supports; thus they
were included in the design of the piping.
Piping was described in paragraph 100.1.1 as also including
hangers, supports, and other equipment items considered neces-
sary to prevent overstressing the pressure-containing parts. Pipe-
supporting elements, such as hangers, supports, and structural
attachments, were dened in paragraph 100.2 in B31.1.0 and in
greater detail in paragraph 120.1. Design rules for pipe-support-
ing elements were discussed in paragraph 121; this wording was
used for the rules of piping supports in B31.7 and was included in
ASME Section III, Subsection NF, 1971 edition, winter 1973
addenda. The denition of piping moved to paragraph 700.2 in
B31.7, which also included the denition for pipe-supporting ele-
ments. These denitions are very important to the requirements
for material certication and identication (which vary signicantly
in these two Piping Codes).
In the early years of piping design, the loadings to be consid-
ered did not vary significantly and were related to sustained
loads from pressure and temperature; from impact forces caused
by external and internal causes, such as the effects of water and
steam hammer; from natural events such as wind, earthquakes,
and vibration; and weight effects from piping, ttings, insulation,
snow, ice, and the transported fluid. Unexpected conditions
operator error, equipment malfunction, and limited variations
from normal operation (e.g., transients in pressure and tempera-
ture)were evaluated and accounted for by allowances on
stresses for various operating periods that experience indicated
would not cause damage to the piping requiring repair or
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:58 PM Page 592
Because these loadings did not cause major changes of the mag-
nitude of loads, items covered by MSS SP-58 (which were load
capacityrated by the Standard) and mass-produced catalog items
(which were load capacityrated by their manufacturers) were
employed to design a load-carrying string or path. These standards
and catalogs specied what today are referred to as commercial
grade materials; they relied on the integrity of Material
Manufacturers and suppliers to guarantee that materials met the
minimum properties specied in the Material Specications.
Reporting the results of specied tests to verify the compliance of
the material with the Specications was not required unless it was
requested by the purchaser.
Most specications did not require material identication with
the ladle-analysis of the heat from which the product was manu-
factured. At best, some specications required marking the material
with the specication number and the material type or grade, or
else a specic symbol that accomplished the same result as todays
COC. The material manufacturers COC was introduced in the
ANSI B31.7c1971 addenda, paragraph 1-723.1.2, and the ASME
Section III, winter 1973 addenda, paragraph NA-3767.4(a).
As nuclear plant design became subjected to failure-prevention
considerations, many postulated events of low and intermediate
probability were added to piping design by the AEC/NRC staff
positions (later to the Standard Review Plans). These events
required design consideration of loadings of a magnitude never
before envisioned by piping analysts: single- and double-ended
pipe-guillotine failures, jet-impingement loads, pipe-whip, cold-leg
breaks, and so forth. The resulting loads were so large that the
Standard supports of MSS SP-58 were no longer adequate for
use in piping supports, so new, engineered support assemblies
were designed using large, thick, structural shapes and, with
increasing frequency, cold-drawn ASTM A 500 Grade B material
and hot-rolled ASTM A 501 square and rectangular pipes. Material
requirements changed from medium carbon steels to quenched and
tempered low-alloy steels in the 110160 ksi specied minimum
tensile strength levels. Eventually the ASME Code published Code
Case 1644, which was divided into two cases in the 1977 edition
and reissued as Nuclear Code Cases N-71 (for welded construction)
and N-249 (for nonwelded construction). These Code Cases pro-
vided many more high-strength, quenched, and tempered materials
than were listed in Tables I-11.1, I-12.1, I-13.1, and I-13.3, all of
which are now listed in Section II, Part D, Subpart 1, Tables 1A,
1B, 2A, 2B, 3, and 4, 2004 edition.
Much of the change in design philosophy was introduced into
B31.7, which adopted the ASME maximum shear-stress design
criteria for Class A Nuclear Vessels and Section VIII, Division 2
Nuclear Vessels (Class B) Pressure Vessels for Class I Nuclear
Piping. In addition, it adopted more restrictive requirements for
materials. In B31.7, paragraph 1-723.1.2, Certication of Materials
by Manufacturer and 1-723.1.3, Identication of Materials, no
distinction was made between pressure-boundary and structural
material, which resulted in signicant constraints on support man-
ufacturers. The ANSI B31.7c1971 addenda solved the problem by
dening a new termpressure-retaining materialin paragraph
1-723.1.1(b), as well as by addressing nonpressure-retaining
material in paragraph 1-723.1.1(c), which were both published in a
completely rewritten Chapter 1-III. Paragraph 1-723.1.2 dened
the COC as the Material Manufacturers certication that the mate-
rial complies with the applicable material certication. It also stated
that COCs may be supplied in lieu of Certied Material Test
Reports (CMTRs) for pipes, tubes, and ttings of in. nominal
size and less, as well as for all material to be used as attachments,
hangers, supports, and fasteners. Paragraph 1-723.1.3 required
identication for pressure-retaining material, but did not address
component standard supports or support material. Paragraph
1-723.1.4 provided specic requirements for materials of support
and hangers, and exempted other materials from CMTRs and
COCs. No such requirements were specied for materials used for
piping in USAS B31.1.0, thereby deferring material certication
and identication to whatever requirements were listed in the
applicable Material Specications or standards.
33.19.3 SEC Commitments
The rst recorded SEC commitment for design and installation of
piping systems is in the ENP Preliminary Safety Analysis Report
(PSAR), Table 3.2.2-2, and later revisions in the Final Safety Analysis
Report (FSAR). This table makes no reference to pipe-supporting
elements; therefore, the requirements of the referenced Codes for the
piping systems become the initial SEC commitment for the design of,
installation of, and materials used for piping supports.
The National Valve and Manufacturing Companys (NAVCO)
principal piping contract incorporated the SEC Specication 9923
for principal piping systems and appurtenances for the ENP.
Paragraph 2(a) required NAVCO to furnish, fabricate, test, and
deliver hangers required for the work. Paragraphs 4(a) and 4(b)
listed the piping systems that would be fabricated and tested to
B31.1.0 and B31.7, respectively.
Paragraph 6(a) makes reference to the SEC Standard Hanger
Drawingsprexed G-M-4 in Drawing Series 30W615-1 through -5
(Pipe Supports and Anchors)whereas paragraph 6(d) describes
their purpose. Paragraph 7(c)(2)C addresses other materials and
appears to indicate that heat traceability and MTRs are required;
however, it does not clearly specify that the term other includes
materials for component supports and component standard sup-
ports. The General Notes section of Table 3.2.2-2 (Sheet 1, second
paragraph) does identify the reference to B31.7 as including
Addenda (a), (b), and (c), so therefore the certication require-
ments of paragraph 1-723, Addenda (c) for hangers and supports
permit the use of COCs when certication is required.
Further clarication on SEC commitments was provided by the
DED in a series of memorandums (or letters) issued in 1975 and
1976. One memorandum from D. R. Punter to R. M. Kicker, dated
September 5, 1975, addressed certication requirements for integral
attachments and component standard supports for ENP Classes A,
B, C, and D piping. In this memorandum, the Mechanical
Engineering Branch indicated that integral attachments to Class A
pipe and Classes B, C, and D impact-tested pipe would require
CMTRs and heat-code traceability. On the other hand, for Classes B,
C, and D pipe with no specied impact testing, only COCs would be
required. Component standard supports would require COCs to
MSS SP-58 and the SEC specication. Items excluded by paragraph
NF-2121 would not require any Material Manufacturers COCs.
A memorandum from R. G. Center to R. H. Passer, dated April
20, 1976, established requirements for traceability of material and
examination requirements for later nuclear plants. The provisions
of the September 5, 1975, letter were repeated; for all other raw
support material, traceability in accordance with the Material
Specications was required from the project-segregated ware-
house to the mill heat number, but traceability from the ware-
house to the installed location was not required. The April 20,
1976, letter also made provision for testing support material not
meeting these requirements in accordance with the materials
relation to nuclear safety. The ENP was specically excluded
from the provisions of this memorandum.
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:58 PM Page 593
594 Chapter 33
A later memorandum from R. G. Center to R. H. Passer, dated
August 17, 1976, and of the same subject, permitted the use of the
provisions of the April 20, 1976, memorandum at ENP. Therefore,
the requirements of the original Code of Record still apply.
Finally, the PERs mention load-bearing members. This term
has been used in documents of the SEC (and possibly that of other
licensees) documents. The earliest reference available to the author
is a copy of the NRC Information Notice No. 88-95, Inadequate
Procurement Requirements Imposed by Licensees on Vendors. A
reference to a manufacturers QA manual addresses the require-
ments for load-bearing parts of a snubber. However, this term
does not exist as a dened term in ASME Section III, Subsection
NF, nor is it by itself a basis for review or lack of compliance.
There are many load-bearing parts of component and piping
support load paths for which no code requirements have been
specied. As described in the aforementioned NRC notice, many of
these parts are listed in paragraph NF-2121 and are excluded from
the requirements of Article NF-2000; as such, they do not require
COCs pursuant to the provisions of NF-2130. These parts are and
have always been exempted from the requirements of ASME NCA-
3800. The exemptions clearly indicate that these parts can be pro-
cured as commercial grade items. Component and piping support
materials not exempted by NF-2121 may be exempted from NCA-
3800, Metallic Material Manufacturers and Material Suppliers
Quality System Program, as permitted by NF-2610 for small prod-
ucts and materials that NF-2130 permits to be supplied with COCs.
All these considerations are for information only, for ENP is not
required to meet the requirements of Subsection NF.
33.19.4 Section XI Requirements
The requirements of IWA-7220 must also be considered in the
replacement of material in existing supports or for installation of
new supports. The reason for the installation becomes an impor-
tant issue in this evaluation.
Although components, parts, and appurtenances are called items
in ASME Sections III and XI, so are material and component sup-
ports (IWA-9000). Therefore, the provision of IWA-7220 that
before authorizing the installation of an item to be used for replace-
ment, the Owner shall conduct an evaluation to determine the suit-
ability of that item. By addressing failure of an item that necessi-
tates replacement, the cause of the failure must be considered.
When the replacement item is like-for-like and caused only by
routine maintenance (such as replacing a fastener during the dis-
assembly and reassembly of a pipe clamp), the evaluation for suit-
ability would only consist of Material Specications year-date
When the need for like-for-like replacement is caused by erosion,
corrosion, or fatigue failure, for example, replacement without elim-
inating the cause of failure or making appropriate corrective provi-
sions will only result in a need for future replacement. The correc-
tive action must be consistent with the original Construction Code or
the Section III Code in effect at the time of specication revision.
The evaluation report becomes part of the Form NIS-2 Data Report.
Supports for piping systems NPS 1 and smaller are exempt
from the foregoing requirements.
33.19.5 Compliance with Original Construction Code
The following position is based on the assumption that the
Section XI replacement program work package species the orig-
inal Construction Code and Code Cases as applicable.
(1) For ENP, the certication requirements for replacement
material for piping system supports that NAVCO was per-
mitted to fabricate and test to B31.1.0 only need to meet the
requirements of the items Material Specications. Since
the original Construction Code permitted ASTM material,
commercial grade material is acceptable as-is if it is ordered
to the Material Specications year-date originally used.
The only evaluation required is a reconciliation to ensure
that material manufactured and supplied to later editions of
Codes and Standards meets or exceeds the requirements of
the original Material Specications.
(2) The certication requirements for replacement material of
component supports for piping systems that NAVCO was
required to fabricate and test to B31.7 are, as a minimum, a
COC with the Material Specications. However, this is not
the same COC dened in NA-3767.4(a), for B31.7 only
required a statement of compliance with the Material
Specications. Because qualication of Material Suppliers
and Manufacturers was not a B31.7 Code requirement,
qualication and QA procedures for approved vendor lists
only apply if ENP committed to them in their QA Program.
If the material is ordered to the same specications used as
the original Material Specications, the only evaluation
required is a reconciliation to ensure that material manufac-
tured to later Codes and Standards meets or exceeds the
requirements of the base Material Specications. This rec-
onciliation can be accomplished by the provision of a ven-
dor-supplied COC or by performing a commercial grade
dedication process and, if the material is determined to be
acceptable, issuing a SEC COC. A proposed example of
such a SEC COC is shown in Fig. 33.1.
33.19.6 Commercial Grade Dedication (CGD)
CGD evaluates the critical characteristics and species the
required inspection and acceptance criteria to ensure that items ded-
icated after receipt are acceptable for use as replacement parts. It
provides more assurance of the capabilities of the material than
what was required by the original Construction Code. For ENP, in
which the material could have been originally procured as what is
today called commercial grade, in addition to being supplied to
B31.7 with a simplistic COC for meeting the requirements of
Material Specications, the testing and inspection of the CGD
clearly can be considered equal to or better than the specied COC.
In any of the preceding cases, if replacement material is pro-
cured to different Material Specications than those of the origi-
nal support material, a more thorough evaluation is required. This
evaluation must prove the functional adequacy of the material,
including equal or higher specied tensile requirements, ductility,
weldability, and fracture toughness (if specied). To do this task,
the SEC evaluation program must include material testing to
establish actual mechanical properties. For attachment material,
chemical testing is required to establish the chemical composition
of the replacement material.
33.19.7 Recommended Disposition of PERs
Procurement of new supports required for a modication will
necessitate design, materials, fabrication, and testing commensu-
rate with the original Construction Code or a specied later Code,
as permitted by ASME Section XI. Certication requirements for
materials shall be specied in accordance with the requirements
of that Code.
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:58 PM Page 594
Procurement of replacement material for existing supports
should, as a minimum, meet the requirements of the original
Construction Code, the SEC commitments, and the Section XI
requirements as described previously.
Material can be procured to the current Code. Contrary to the
perception of many Quality Assurance organizations, it has
never been the intent of the NRC to limit material certication
to only those specications listed in Section II, Parts A, B, and
C of the edition and addenda accepted in 10CFR50.55a. That
particular edition (currently the 2004 edition) includes NCA-
1140(b) and (f). This inclusion permits the use of later editions
and addenda as well as earlier Code material. Reconciliation is
the key.
Earlier or existing material must be certied to the same
specication, grade, type, or class as the material it will replace.
In addition, it must meet the minimum specied tensile and yield
strengths of the material described in the components
Construction Code. Although ductility (evidenced by reduction of
area and elongation properties) does not affect design, it does
affect toughness, so it merits evaluation. Changes in chemical
composition should be reviewed and evaluated as well.
Material procured to certication year-dates later than those
specied in the components Construction Code must also be rec-
onciled. Technical changes made to subsequent revisions to the
specications should be documented and evaluated.
On some occasions, Material Specications are annulled; for
example, SA-155, welded-with-ller-metal carbon and alloy steel
pipe, was replaced by SA-671, SA-672, and SA-691. Due care
must be exercised in procuring this material to ensure that the cor-
rect grade and class have been specied.
Material initially used on the basis of a Code Case can be
replaced by material listed in a later edition or addenda by the use
of the Code Case index and documentation of the date in which
the Case was incorporated into the Code. Material whose specied
strengths have been changed in the Material Specications can still
be used. In the case of a reduction in strength, documentation of
the mechanical property test results can be shown to meet the
effective Codes specied strength levels. If the specied tensile
and yield strengths have increased, the new material is inherently
Before the winter 1973 addenda, the terms CMTR and COC
were not used in the Code. Material Specications required, or
else provided, that when requested by the purchaser, the results of
all tests and examinations would be supplied with the material.
This record was (and still is) referred to as the MTR.
There are two basic documents specied by the Code for mate-
rials: the CMTR and the COC (materials include pipe made
from sheet or strip rolled and welded without the addition of ller
metal, as in autogenous welding). The contents of a typical
CMTR are described in Section III, Division 1, Appendix P.
Welded-with-ller metal-type pipe requires fabrication under an
NCA-4134 QA Program for an N-Type Certicate Holder; the
application of an NPT-Code Symbol Stamp; and the completion,
certication, and submission of the NM-1 Data Report Form.
Nameplates, however, are not required.
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:59 PM Page 595
596 Chapter 33
Not all Material Specifications require heat traceability. For
replacement items and for upgrading stock material, this
author believes that traceability is necessary to prevent material-
identication problems later. The Owners QA Program assumes the
responsibility for acceptability. Without traceability, a signicant
cost will be incurred in qualifying unidentied material.
Anyone can order a component. The reason is that a component
is a stand-alone item. Its data package must include the following:
The Owners Certied Design Specication.
The Manufacturers Certied (if required) Design Report.
The documentation of the Owners Review of the Design
Report (if applicable).
The appropriate Data Report Forms.
All required permanent and nonpermanent records.
Certications specied in NCA-4134.17.
The component can be ordered to any Code, as described in
NCA-1140 and IWA-4140. Because of the rapidly diminishing
manufacturers still retaining their Certicates of Authorization,
the NRC has issued guidelines for use of commercial grade dedi-
cation items, or CGD. CGD programs are becoming increasingly
important to operating utilities, but discussion is beyond the scope
of this chapter. Some aspects of a CGD program are included in
Example B (Section 33.19).
The nature of the rules and the denitions of nuclear power
items are included in subsubarticles NCA-1110 and NCA-1120.
NCA-1130(a) limits the scope of the rules to new construction. It
requires consideration of mechanical and thermal stresses caused
by cyclic operation. NCA-1130(b) lists one of the important sets
of exclusions from the rules of Section III. Exempted are valve
operators, controllers, position indicators, pump impellers, pump
drivers, and other accessories and devices that are not pressure-
retaining. Also exempted are intervening elements used as com-
ponent or piping supports; instruments and permanently sealed
uid-lled tubing systems furnished with instruments; and instru-
ment, control, and sampling piping unless they are specied as
Code items in the Design Specications.
Before the winter 1977 addenda, the Code of Record for a
component was the Code in effect on its order date. The summer
1977 addenda made provisions for Division 2 Components. The
winter 1977 revision permitted the Owner to specify one edition
and addenda of the Code to be used for all components at a plant
site. The date that the Owner chooses for his or her plant cannot
be any earlier than three years before the docket date of the con-
struction permit application. The change allows duplicate nuclear
plants at the same site (or replicate plants at different siteseven
with different Owners) to be built to the same Code within a
three-year umbrella period between nuclear plant PSAR lings.
The NRC has increased the umbrella to ve years, but the Code
has not. NCA-1140 still allows updating by means of Code Cases
or the use of specic provisions from later editions and addenda.
It recommends discussing these uses with the Enforcement and
Regulatory Authorities having jurisdiction at the nuclear plant or
shop site.
NCA-1140 was revised in the winter 1981 addenda to make
provisions for the use of existing material previously produced
according to Code editions and addenda earlier than the one
specied for construction of an item.
The ASME provides a service for any organization applying to
it for nuclear accreditation to perform activities in compliance
with the rules of the ASME B&PV Code Section III, Divisions 1
and 2.
By 1971, Section III of the B&PV Code had been expanded to
cover piping, pumps, valves, and storage tanks. In 1972, proce-
dures were in place, and three-year certicates were being issued
by the Subcommittee on Nuclear Certication, which was formed
to review the reports of the nuclear survey teams. In the winter
1973 addenda, Section III was expanded further to include core-
support structures and component supports, as well as to provide
for Code coverage of Material Manufacturers and Suppliers.
Around 1973, the nuclear approach spread into the non-nuclear
certication program; by 1974, the Subcommittee on Code
Symbol Stamps began reviewing reports by jurisdictional authori-
ties or the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Inspectors accompanied by representatives of the Authorized
Inspection Agencies.
By 1982, the Subcommittee on Nuclear Certication was
renamed the Subcommittee on Nuclear Accreditation (SCNA);
the Subcommitteee on Code Symbol Stamps was renamed Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Accreditation (SCBPVA). Both committees
reported originally to the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Main
Committee; they were supervised, respectively, by the Board on
Nuclear Codes and Standards and the Board on Pressure
Technology Codes and Standards. Since 1996, both subcommit-
tees have been supervised by the Board on Accreditation,
Registration and Certication that, in March 1999, was renamed
the Board on Conformity Assessment (BCA).
The requirements that must be followed by organizations seek-
ing accreditation are detailed in NCA-8100. The evaluation of
these organizations QA Programs is performed by survey teams
who report the survey and audit results to the SCNA, and results
of reviews to the SCBPVA for approval action, and issuance of
33.24.1 Types of Nuclear Certicates
There were four types of certicates available: the Certicate of
Accreditation, the Quality System Certicate, the Certicate of
Authorization, and the Interim Letter. The Interim Letter was ter-
minated in the 1998 edition and replaced by a Certicate of
Accreditation. All certicates are now issued for a period of three
years. Certicate of Accreditation This category includes
the Owners Certicate of Accreditation. As of April 1, 2000, no
utilities had these certicates, which permit control of one or
more subcontractors holding appropriate Certicates of
Authorization for those activities requiring such accreditation. In
addition, they permit certication and ling of the Owners Data
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:59 PM Page 596
Report Form N-3 after completion of Code Construction. An
agreement with an AIA is required as well.
Corporate Certicates of Accreditation that can be extended to
sites, subject to site audit, are also included in this category.
A new certicatethe Nuclear Support (NS) Certicatewas
authorized in the 1998 edition, 1999 addenda, by the Subcommittee
on Nuclear Power (SCIII). This certicate is intended to resolve
the problem created when the Code introduced Subsection NF
(Component Supports) in the winter 1973 addenda. The winter
1975 addenda established the requirement for NPT-stamping of
any welded support, but it made no provisions for manufacturers
who supplied standard supports as material under the provisions
of paragraph NF-1214. These companies still have design respon-
sibility; however, the only certicate available was that of the
Material Supplier and (now) the Material Organization (MO).
This certicate had no requirements for Design Control; many
stop-gap actions were required to permit Material Organizations
to supply standard supports such as mechanical snubbers. The
new NS certicate requires an agreement with an AIA and is also
limited to piping and standard supports (both welded and non-
welded). Nameplates and stamping of welded supports are no
longer required.
Code Symbol Stamps are not provided with Certicates of
Accreditation. Quality System Certicate The next type of
certicate is the Quality System Certicate (QSC). It is awarded to
the Material Organization who manufactures material and to the
Material Organization who supplies material.
In 1975, these certicates were called the Material Manufacturer
(MM) and Material Supplier (MS) certicates. They were intended
for Material Manufacturers and supply ware-houses and, more-
over, did not permit welded ASME III fabrication. The scopes also
provided for suppliers who were capable of performing some of
the activities usually associated with Material Manufacturers. The
rules in NCA-3800 were completely revised in the 1994 addenda.
On July 1, 1995, these certicates began to be phased outas pro-
vided in Code Case N-540, and after July 1, 1998, the only QSCs
issued by the ASME are for Material Organizations.
There were 53 Quality System Certicates issued as of June 1,
2004: 24 were outside of the United States in 11 countries, 32
were companies that manufacture materials, 17 were companies
that manufacture and supply materials, and 4 were companies that
supply materials. Certicate of Authorization The next category is the
Certicate of Authorization. There are six N-Type Certicate
Holders in this category, each providing accredited organizations
with ASME authorization to stamp items with the Code Symbol
Stamp. They are the N-Certicate Holder, the NA-Certicate
Holder, the NPT-Certicate Holder, and the NV-Certicate Holder,
the NS-Certicate Holder, and the N3-Certicate Holder.
Before the 1977 edition, the N-Certicate Holder was called the
Manufacturer; the NA-Certicate Holder was called the Installer,
and the NPT-Certicate Holder was called the Fabricator.
The N-Type Certicate scope can describe activities performed
in other locations. An organization can hold a corporate N, N3,
NA, NPT, NS and/or NV Certicates of Accreditation at its corpo-
rate headquarters and, in addition, the certicates can be extended
as Certicates of Authorization to other nuclear plant sites, includ-
ing the headquarters address. They can also be issued individually
to a nuclear plant site or plant location. The scopes of N-Type
certicates can permit supply or manufacture and supply of mater-
ial [NCA-3820(c)]. A contract with an AIA for the services of an
ANI and an ANSI is required.
There were 97 N certicates issued as of June 30, 2004, 40 of
which were outside the United States in 15 countries. Of these
certicates, 28 included the provisions of NCA-3820(c) for activi-
ties as material organizations (MOs). There were 41 total NA
certicates, 29 outside the United States in 6 countries, with 4
MOs; 128 total NPT certicates, 57- in 12 countries other than
the United States, with 85 MOs; 7 total NV certicates, 3 outside
the USA in 3 countries, with 1 MO; 55 NS certicates, 37 outside the
USA in 14 countries, with 9 MOs; and 10 N3 certicates, 4 out-
side the USA in 4 countries, with 1 MO. Interim Letter Another type of certicate was the
Interim Letter. Now phased out, this certicate permitted an orga-
nization with an approved QA Program to apply to the ASME for
a survey, even though the organization might not be able to demon-
strate the proven capability to implement the program. An agree-
ment with an AIA was required.
The Interim Letter was usually applied for by companies wish-
ing to advertise their desire to secure nuclear business, but not
having any work in progress, or were unable to run a commercial
order for an item as if it were a nuclear order. All the require-
ments of the QA Program had to be implemented.
Interim Letters required application for initial issuance. They
were issued for one year, and could be renewed annually by mail by
a request to the ASME. This process was limited to two renewals; a
third required a full survey. Renewal applications had to be submit-
ted at least 90 days before each annual renewal and not less than 6
months before to the third renewal expiration date. Deposit fees for
renewal surveys were required. Those companies holding Interim
Letters have been issued Certicates of Accreditation and must
now apply for three-year Certicates of Accreditation when their
certicates expire.
The Interim Letter (NCA-8162) was eliminated in the 1998
edition and replaced by the Certicate of Accreditation. Interim
Letters have not been issued since that Code revision came into
effect. They were issued for one year; the replacement Certicate
of Accreditation, however, is issued for the original expiration
date, and renewal applications are made for three-year certicates.
33.24.2 Issuance and Renewal of Certicates
A construction permit or docket date issued by the NRC is a
prerequisite for the initial issuance of an Owners Certicates of
Accreditation. These certicates can be renewed by mail by a
request to the ASME. Renewal application should be submitted at
least 90 days before expiration. An administrative fee is required
for each certicate.
All other certicates require an application to the ASME for ini-
tial issuance. For renewal, the application must be made at least
6 months before their date of expiration. A minimum specied
deposit is required also subject to receipt by the application deadline.
33.24.3 Accreditation Process
The process of accreditation is the same for initial issuance as it
is for renewal of an existing certicate, with the exception that the
initial application is made after the ANSI (or a Quality System
Certicate Holders staff or subcontracted consultant) is satised
that the organization is ready. Applications for renewal must be
made as described in the preceding paragraphs. The process is
somewhat different for the various certicates.
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:59 PM Page 597
598 Chapter 33
Application for initial issuance of the Owners Certicate
results in the applicant being interviewed by an ASME Interview
Team, which consists of the AIAs representative as the ASME
Team Leader and the Jurisdictional Authority. In a case in which
there is no jurisdictional authority, the jurisdictional authority
elects not to participate, or the jurisdictional authority is also the
AIA, a National Board representative is used for the Interview
Team. The jurisdictional authority is not included on surveys
located outside the United States and Canada. Renewal may be
made as described previously.
Applicants for QSCs generally supply and manufacture materi-
als; until the 1999 addenda, they were able to supply and manufac-
ture standard supports. Application for initial issuance or renewal
results in a scheduled survey by an ASME Survey Team consisting
of an ASME Team Leader and an ASME team member. A mini-
mum of two annual unannounced audits are performed by a Team
Leader who can be either of the original team members. A number
of random unannounced audits are also assigned by staff.
Application for initial issuance or renewal of Certicates of
Authorization result in the applicant being surveyed by an ASME
Survey Team consisting of an ASME Team Leader, an ASME
team member, a National Board representative, the AIA personnel
(ANIS and ANI), and the Jurisdictional Authority.
On resurveys, the Team Leader may be a member of the origi-
nal ASME team. The National Board member should preferably
be the original team member.
Application for initial issuance or an annual renewal of the old
Interim Letter (now a Certicate of Accreditation) resulted in the
applicant being surveyed by an ASME Survey Team consisting of
an ASME Team Leader, a National Board representative, and the
AIA personnel.
The jurisdictional authority is generally invited by the ASME.
On resurveys, the Team Leader may be any ASME member of the
original team. The National Board member should preferably be
the original team member, and a utility representative may be
assigned by staff.
33.24.4 Scope of the Survey
Issuance or renewal of Certicates is accomplished by complet-
ing a successful survey performed by an ASME team that
includes the following:
(1) review for approval of the QA Manual describing the pro-
(2) review for acceptance of a demonstration for implementa-
tion of the program;
(3) receiving a favorable recommendation from the ASME
Survey Team to the SCNA for renewal of the certicates;
(4) successful completion of the SCNA ballot process;
(5) notication by accreditation department staff of the ballot
process results and submittal of all invoices;
(6) payment of all outstanding invoices, including costs of
N-symbol stamps, where applicable; and
(7) receipt of certicates.
Failure of the renewal survey would require a resurvey, with
potential loss of certicates during the appeal process unless all
required steps are met.
33.24.5 Contractual Requirements with an AIA
All certicates other than the QSCs require an agreement with
an AIA to provide third party inspection using one or more ANIs,
as required, supervised by an ANIS. QSCs are not subject to third
party inspection, and the duties for review and acceptance of
changes to the QA Manual are assumed by the ASME. The fee
for the application for a QSC includes the cost of such review as
well as the prepayment for 2.6 unannounced audits.
The applicants or Certicate Holders ANIS and ANI (for an
N-Type Certicate) participate with the ASME Survey Team in the
review of the QA Program. Observers will frequently be part of the
team, as it is necessary to provide training to prospective ASME
survey team consultants and nuclear inspectors. New members of
the SCNA must participate in one nuclear survey during the rst
two years of their appointment. Inspection personnel must also
meet the minimum number of surveys required for commission.
33.24.6 Manual Revisions and Audits of QSCs
Manual revisions for QSC Holders must be submitted to the
ASME for review and acceptance by a member of the Survey
Team. Changes to the program should not be implemented before
ASME acceptance of the changes. QSC organizations are subject
to at least two unannounced audits by the ASME during the inter-
vening three years between surveys. During the audits, all changes
to the manual are subject to verication and implementation.
33.24.7 References to Applicable Codes
(a) Accreditation requirements:
(1) QSC Accreditation: NCA-3800.
(2) Other Certicate Holders: NCA-8000 and IWA-8000.
(b) QA Program requirements:
(1) QSC Holders: NCA-3800.
(2) Other Certicate Holders: NCA-4000, IWA-4000, and
(c) Duties and responsibilities:
(1) Certicate Holders: NCA-3000.
(2) Authorized Inspection: NCA-5000 and ASME QAI-
33.24.8 Typical Nuclear Survey
The applicant noties the ASME of his or her intent to seek
accreditation. The ASME staff then sends the applicant an appli-
cation packet that includes a questionnaire and information on
required fees. The applicant completes the forms and submits
them with a check for the appropriate dollar amount to the
ASME. The ASME staff reviews the availability of survey per-
sonnel and provides the company with a proposed date for the
survey. The applicant has the option to accept the date or ask for a
later date. The applicant also recommends to staff the hotel facili-
ties most appropriate to the plant location. The ASME staff then
submits an information letter announcing the designated team
membership, the dates for the survey, and the time that the QA
Manual submitted for approval and the completed survey check-
list (and the number of copies needed for the team) should be
available at the teams hotel. The application packet also includes
a letter that describes the condentiality of the survey.
The team meets at the hotel, reviews the QA Manual for com-
pliance with ASME Section III requirements, makes notations
where deciencies are observed, and makes recommendations for
revision. Particular attention is paid to the organization chart, the
references to the listed personnel in later sections of the QA
Manual, and the presence of controls for the activities included in
the QA Program. The Team Leader assigns areas for implementa-
tion review to the other members of the team, including observers
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:59 PM Page 598
if any are present. He or she also reserves areas of implementation
review for him- or herself and the ANIS. At the conclusion of the
Manual review by the team, he or she contacts the applicant and
arranges for an entry meeting.
It is recommended that senior managers of the applicants orga-
nization attend the meeting with the Survey Team. Doing so
shows interest in the viability of the QA Program and helps edu-
cate the management on the involvement of the ASME in its
accreditation programs.
At the entry meeting, the Team Leader introduces the team, then
describes the scope of the Survey. The requested scopes of the
certicates are discussed with the applicant to ensure that they rep-
resent the activities for which the company seeks accreditation. The
Team Leader also spends time on the condentiality ramications
of the process and recommends that questions be asked whenever
the applicants personnel nds a situation confusing. A list of the
areas for which personnel are assigned for implementation review
is presented; the applicant is requested to provide guides to take the
team members to the locations where the activities are being per-
formed. The team then requests a tour of the facility to become ori-
ented with it. After the tour, the Team Leader and the ANIS meet
with the QA Manager and his or her staff to review any deciencies
in the QA Manual and to accept any of the applicants recommended
dispositions, as well as to ask any questions that were raised by the
team during the Manual review. The other team members and their
guides depart to perform the implementation review. The Team
Leader annotates the agreements in his or her copy of the Manual,
then requests that the QA Manager have a corrected version of the
Manual ready for his or her and the ANISs review the next day.
The Team Leader and the ANIS then join the implementation teams
and audit their assigned areas of responsibility.
At the end of the day, the team members caucus in a room
reserved for their use by the company to discuss the results of
their audits, including any ndings. If further changes are
required in the QA Manual, they are brought to the attention of
the QA Manager. The following morning, the Team Leader and
the ANIS review the revised QA Manual and compare it with the
Team Leaders copy. If it is found acceptable, the ANIS signs off
on the cover sheet, and the revision level and date of the Manual
are recorded. The Team Leader and the ANIS again join the rest
of the team personnel in the implementation review. At a desig-
nated time, the team members meet to determine if the reviews
have been completed and to complete QD forms for detected
quality deciencies, if required (including corrective actions taken
to close out deciencies), and personnel training, if also required.
Occasionally, the team nds a company inadequately prepared
and subject to failing the survey. The Team Leader will offer the
company the opportunity to abort the survey. If the company
agrees, the ASME staff is consulted and must concur with the
action before the survey is aborted.
The team votes on whether to recommend a certicate for
issuance; if the team decides not to recommend issuance, it rec-
ommends a resurvey. The Team Leader noties the QA Manager
of the time for an exit meeting. Generally, most personnel in
attendance at the entry meeting participate in the exit meeting. At
this meeting, the Team Leader discusses the results of the survey
and reports the teams recommendation. He or she again discusses
condentiality, then asks for any questions. When the meeting is
concluded, the team members depart for their residences or possi-
bly to other surveys.
In foreign countries, the team expects to see a translation into
English of the QA Manual and any procedures required for the
implementation review. If translators are required, the applicant
provides them at his or her expense. The nal copy of the Manual
is translated from the applicants native language into English,
and the team must be satised that the English translation and the
original are compatible. Foreign surveys frequently take longer
because of the language barrier.
33.24.9 New Developments in ASME Accreditation
The most important and recent change of the Code is the
required accreditation of Authorized Inspection Agencies. The
nuclear AIAs were accredited under ANSI/ASME N626, Part 4,
during 1993. Its replacement, QAI-11995 (Qualication for
Authorized Inspection) included Part 5 and was issued July 1,
1995. It requires accreditation of AIAs who provide inspection
services to non-nuclear organizations when the applicable Codes
adopt QAI-1. The Main Committee of the N626 Committee on
Qualications and Duties for Authorized Nuclear Inspection and
Specialized Professional Engineers took the action to have SCNA
handle the review and acceptance of Survey Team Reports during
an interim period. This activity is now handled by the QAI
Subcommittee on AIA Accreditation.
In June 1993, the Council on Codes and Standards changed
the Board on Accreditation and Certication (BAC) from an
Advisory Board to a Supervisory Board, renaming it the Board on
Accreditation, Registration, and Certication (BARC) when it was
given responsibility over the ISO Registration Program. In 1999, the
name was again changed; it became the Board on Conformity
Assessment (BCA). In June 1994, the Council also stipulated that
the N626 Committee move from under the Board on Nuclear Codes
and Standards to the BARC. The N626 Committee changed its
name to the Committee on Qualication for Authorized Inspection
(QAI). The QAI Committee now reports to the BCA. At present, the
SCNA and SCBPVA report through the Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Main Committee to the BCA, as do many other Code accreditation
and registration committees. The Standard N626.31993 was
assigned to Section III and was published as Appendix XXIII in the
1996 addenda, and the original standard has been alloted.
Further problems in accreditation have been caused by an NRC
position that holds the ASME Survey Teams responsible for per-
forming programmatic audits, and its position that the ASME sur-
vey system is not adequate to properly evaluate implementation.
The NRC Staff letter requires utilities to audit their suppliers even
though they may be accredited by the ASME. This resulted in a
new organization formed in 1989, the Nuclear Utilities
Procurement Issues Committee (NUPIC), which has established
qualied auditors to perform cooperative audits on behalf of
member utilities to meet this additional NRC auditing require-
ment. It is believed that this is also a fallout from the many prob-
lems encountered in the past 20 years with some organizations
that hold ASME accreditation who have supplied false and sub-
standard material. NUPIC audits are not acceptable to ASME as a
means of meeting the audit requirements of NCA-4834.1.
A recent development was the passing of Code Case N-549
(Stamping and Flow Certication of Rupture Disk Devices, Classes
2 and 3). The Code Case included provisions for the accreditation of
manufacturers of these items and also proposed the use of an ND
stamp and Data Report Form similar to the existing NV Certicate
of Authorization. The BCA had no rules prepared for this action, so
the implementation of this Code Case has been suspended. (The
requirements will be available in the near future.) The BCA has
ruled, however, that only changes to a Code or a new Code (but not
to Code Cases) can start a new accreditation program.
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:59 PM Page 599
600 Chapter 33
With the publication of Section III, Division 3 (Containment
Systems for Transport Packaging) in 1997, a new accreditation
program has been initiated providing for the N and NPTClass
TP Certicate of Authorization for manufacturers of these casks.
As of October 1, 1999, there were eight companies holding
N-TypeClass TP Certicates of Authorization, and seven of
them also held NPTClass TP certicates.
In the 2001 Edition, Division 3 eliminated the Design Owner
and the Packaging Owner, established the N-3 Certicate
Holder, changed Class TP to TC, and made provisions for a new
Class SC, for storage containments. A new subsection, WC, pro-
viding rules for these containments, has been approved as Code
Case N-717, and was published in Supplement 1 to the Nuclear
Code Case Volume in late 2004 for use and experience.
Subsection WC was published in the 2005 Addenda to the 2004
Edition of Section III, Division 3, and is now in effect.
As mentioned previously in this chapter, ASME accreditation
has been available outside the United States since the 1960s.
Nuclear activity in the form of new construction of nuclear power
plants is now limited to countries in the Pacic rim and Finland.
Figures 33.2 and 33.3, prepared by the ASME Conformity
Assessment Department, detail the numbers of companies and
certicates (including nuclear certicates) in the United States
and Canada. Figures 33.3 through 33.10 do likewise for North
America as a whole, as well as countries in South America,
Europe, the Middle East, Eastern Asia, Australia and Africa.
Countries that currently have companies with one or more nuclear
certicates are listed alphabetically in Figure 33.11. Figure 33.12
reviews the distribution of certicate holders and the number of
current certicates in the U. S. A., Canada, and International.
Finally, Figure 33.13 is a summary of Code Symbol Stamps by
Code sections in the U. S. A., Canada, and International. All these
gures and statistics are effective as of June 30, 2007. There were
5028 Certicate Holders and 8809 certicates active on that date.
Currently, ASME is actively engaged in establishing relation-
ships on an international basis to permit the use of the ASME
Accreditation process throughout the entire world. This effort is
already underway with the metrication of many ASME Standards,
and in de-nationalizing the requirements of the ASME Codes. The
Council on Codes and Standards has established a Task Group to
study the question to permit the Board on Conformity Assessment
and the QAI Committee to develop rules. These rules will dene
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:59 PM Page 600
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:59 PM Page 601
602 Chapter 33
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:59 PM Page 602
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:59 PM Page 603
604 Chapter 33
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:59 PM Page 604
Authorized Inspection Agencies beyond the current limitation to a
jurisdiction (State of the United States and Province of Canada)
that has adopted and administered one or more sections of the code
as legal requirements within its territorial jurisdiction, and was
qualied to be represented on the ASME B&PV Code Conference
Committee, or an insurance company that had been authorized by
the government of a state or province to write boiler and pressure
vessel insurance within its territorial jurisdiction. This work is pro-
gressing and we are seeing results immediately, with the require-
ments for qualication of Registered Professional Engineers mov-
ing from the ASME N626.3-1993 Standard to Appendix XXIII in
Section III, and the requirements for the ANII moving to an
Appendix of Section XI. International Material Specications are
being approved and published in Section II and the Stress Tables,
and more projects will be completed in the near future.
The Board on Nuclear Codes and Standards has been engaged
actively in meetings with delegations from other countries who
are interested in adopting the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code, at least for its technical requirements. The administrative
requirements that currently prevent this from occurring are being
dened, so that they can be separated from the technical require-
ments. The adopting country will then be able to replace the
administrative requirements with their own rules. Members of the
BNCS have met with representatives from Canada, China,
Finland, France, India, Korea, South Africa and Sweden. Finland
is in the process of building a new nuclear plant. Spain has 6
BWRs and PWRs; UK has Sizewell B; Japan has a large number
of BWRs and PWRs; South Korea a large number of PWRs;
Taiwan has 8 BWRs and PWRs; China has a Pebble-bed Research
Reactor; Slovenia has the Krsko BWR; Brazil has Angra 1; India
has the Tarapur plant; and South Africa is building the PBMR
Demonstration Plant.
In a further effort to globalize the ASME Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code, the 2004 Edition has been published in Hard Metric
format, and the Stress Tables of Section II, Part D, have been pub-
lished as a separate, metric volume. In addition, the QME
Standard is being converted to Soft Metric, and the O&M stan-
dard has been converted to Hard Metric. International member-
ship on Codes and Standards Committees has increased. We now
have Canadian, French, and Japanese participants in Boiler and
Pressure Vessel committees; Canadian, Japanese, Russian and UK
members in Section III; Canadian and Japanese in Section XI;
Japanese and Spanish in O&M; Canadian and Japanese in the
QME; UK in the CNRM; French, UK, and South African in the
Project Team for Graphite Core Supports; and Japanese partici-
pants in the System Code Project Team.
On October 13, 2004, the US DOC (Department of Commerce)
formally announced that the Consortium on Standards and
Conformity Assessment has been awarded an MDCP grant to
establish a CSCA ofce in Beijing, China. The consortium con-
sists of ASME, ASTM International, API and CSA America. The
Beijing ofce will assist in monitoring developments in China
that impact on the use of US standards and conformity assessment
programs in China, and will serve as an entry point for various
programs aimed at educating Chinese industry and government on
the benets of using US standards, particularly those that are
international standards.
Utilization of the ASME Code Symbol Stamp is a means of
complying with the laws and regulations in all states in the U.S.,
and all of the provinces of Canada. In addition, according to
ONE/TV/BV Technische Inspektions GmbH, over 113 countries
accept the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code as a means of
meeting their government safety regulations. This link,, takes you to a
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:59 PM Page 605
606 Chapter 33
web page listing these countries. Figure 33.14 paraphrases the list
of countries shown on this web page.
Through its accreditation activities, ASME has achieved a truly
global stature.
Since the rst edition of this Companion Guide, many activities
have taken place, and more are in course of preparation. Some of
these developments are summarized below:
At the request of the US Department of Transportation, ASME
undertook to prepare rules for transport equipment to replace
Federal standards. This project has resulted in the publication of
Section XII, Rules for Construction and Continued Service of
Transport Tanks, and has become international. To permit other
alternatives for inspection, the BCA, through its QAI Committee,
is developing rules for the Qualication and Duties for Certied
Individuals. When approved, these rules will be published as Part
8 of ASME QAI-1, Qualications for Authorized Inspection.
Unlike the AI and the ANI, the CI will be an employee of a cer-
ticate holder authorized for the application of one or more
ASME Code Symbol stamps. The CI shall provide oversight to
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:59 PM Page 606
assure that each use of the appropriate Code Symbol is in accor-
dance with the requirements of the applicable Code Section.
When so referenced by the respective Code Section (I; IV; VIII
Divisions 1, 2, and 3; X; and XII), a CI may be used in the same
manner as an Authorized Inspector. Section XII has already
adopted this initiative for Class 3 vessels in the 2004 Edition.
Section IV has also incorporated the use of the CI for the inspec-
tion of Heating Boilers manufactured of cast iron in this Edition.
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:59 PM Page 607
608 Chapter 33
ASME Conformity Assessment used to publish two books list-
ing all Boiler and Pressure Vessel Certicates in one annual vol-
ume, and Nuclear Certicates in the other, six times per year. The
publication of these books has been discontinued. The nuclear
certicate lists are now accessible through the ASME web site. If
a code user wishes to download the entire list of companies hold-
ing nuclear certicates, he can do so by accessing the following
URL Certicates
List 01.rpt. Because of the very large size of the Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Certicates list, it has not been made available for
downloading. However, if a user wishes to search for a specic
company, type of certicate, state, province or country, either
boiler and pressure vessel or nuclear, it can be done by accessing
this URL:
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:59 PM Page 608
Section IIIs subgroup on Nuclear Packaging (NUPACK) is
beginning development of a new subsection WD. This effort will
bring rules for the construction of internal structures for transport
and storage containments into the Division 3 standard. Currently,
all items involving design and construction are brought to the
NRC for approval and licensing, and only a few Code Cases on
materials, and one on construction (N-595-5) have been approved
by the Committee.
For many years, BNCS has supported a Committee on Nuclear
Risk Management, whose charter is To develop, revise and
maintain standards and guides on risk management techniques,
including Probabilistic Risk Assessment for nuclear power
plants and other facilities. The actions of this committee result-
ed in the publication of a new ASME standard in April 2002,
ASME RA-S-2002, Standard for Probabilistic Risk Assessment
for Nuclear Power Plant Applications, and its rst Addendum,
ASME-RA-Sa-2003, which became available in October 2003. A
second Addendum is in course of preparation. Section XI has
taken the lead in applying this new approach and has published
several Code Cases implementing the procedure.
As new designs are being brought forward for new generations
of Advanced Boiling Water, Pressurized Water and Gas Cooled
Reactors, the BNCS has established a New Reactors Task Group.
This committee has undertaken the mission to ensure, on a
worldwide basis, that ASME Nuclear Codes and Standards pro-
tect public health and safety and meet the needs of users. These
Codes and Standards are developed with an approved consensus
process. To achieve this goal, Section XI is in the process of
reviving Division 2, Rules for the Inspection and Testing of
Components of Gas-Cooled Plants. This Division became silent
in the mid 90s, and the current edition is the 1992 Edition with
the 1993 Addenda, pages 485 through 653. Rules are being pro-
posed to only include IGA, and not to have subsections IGB, IGC
or IGD. The entire process will be risk based. Systems will not be
classied as before, they will be risk categorized. The initial
examinations will be deterministic, but will be selected via risk
based methods, in a manner similar to Code Case N-660.
For a number of years, a project team consisting of scientists
and engineers from China, Europe, Japan, Korea, Russia, and the
United States have been working in an unprecedented internation-
al collaboration on the next major step for the development of
fusion-ITER (which means the way in Latin). The acronym also
stands for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor.
ITERs mission is to demonstrate the scientic and technological
feasibility of fusion energy for peaceful purposes. To do this, ITER
will demonstrate moderate power multiplication, demonstrate essen-
tial fusion energy technologies in a system integrating the appropri-
ate physics and technology, and test key elements required to use
fusion as a practical energy source. ITER will be the rst fusion
device to produce thermal energy at the level of an electricity-
producing power station. It will provide the next major step for the
advancement of fusion science and technology, and is the key ele-
ment in the strategy to reach the following demonstration electricity-
generating power plant (DEMO) in a single experimental step.
ITER is an experimental fusion reactor based on the tokamak
concepta toroidal (doughnut-shaped) magnetic conguration in
which to create and maintain the conditions for controlled fusion
reactions. The overall ITER plant comprises the tokamak, its auxil-
iaries, and supporting plant facilities. In ITER, superconducting
magnet coils around a toroidal vessel conne and control a mix of
charged particles - the plasma - and induce an electrical current
through it. Fusion reactions take place when the plasma is hot
enough, dense enough, and contained for long enough for the atomic
nuclei in the plasma to start fusing together. The tokamak concept
was rst developed in Russia and has since been brought to a high
level of development in all the major fusion programs of the world.
To meet its objectives, ITER will be much bigger (twice linear
dimensions) than the largest existing tokamak and its expected
fusion performance will be many times greater. These extrapola-
tions in size and physics performance provide the major chal-
lenges to the design of ITER. Section III has received permission
to incorporate the rules that will be forthcoming from this multi-
national project team into a new Section III, Division 4.
The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER)
will be located in Cadarache, France. This announcement, made
in Moscow on June 28th, 2005, reects the agreement of repre-
sentatives from the U.S., European Union, Japan, the Russian
Federation, China, India and Korea. This agreement resolves a
major difculty for U.S. participation in the project. In 1998, the
U.S. withdrew from ITER participation due to concerns over the
management and cost of the project. In 2003, that position was
reversed. However, Senate appropriators have been skeptical
about the project, earlier this month reducing ITER funding to
$28,000,000 due in large part to the delay in agreeing on a loca-
tion for ITER. This siting decision clears the way for House and
Senate appropriators to work with the Department of Energy
(DOE) to provide additional ITER funding. DOEs Ofce of
Science Director, Ray Orbach, noted that the U.S. looks forward
to ITER construction in the near future. However, he cautioned
that ITER negotiators still must resolve key management and
oversight arrangements. The U.S. will continue to strive for a
robust management structure and an oversight program based on
the principles of equality, accountability and transparency to
ensure both the success of the project and the best use of
American taxpayer dollars. It is possible that the agreement
could be ready by the end of the year, followed by a three to four
month review period. If the agreement is signed early in 2006,
construction could start soon after. ITER construction is anticipat-
ed to take eight years. Further information on this project is avail-
able on-line by accessing this URL:
One of the most active projects is the Pebble Bed Modular
Reactor, which uses nuclear fuel embedded in graphite spheres and
is cooled by helium. A demonstration plant is currently being con-
structed in South Africa, and the proponents are seeking assistance
from the ASME to insure that the reactor system meets the ASME
Code. One of the activities to support this concept is the proposed
inclusion in Section III of Design Requirements for Graphite Core
Supports. A Section III Special working group on Graphite Core
Structures has been formed. The committee charter is to establish
rules for materials selection and qualication, design, fabrication,
testing, installation, examination, inspection, certication, and the
preparation of reports for manufacture and installation of non-
metallic internal components for ssion reactors, where non-metallic
internal components are dened as components, including control
rods and assemblies, contained within a ssion reactor pressure
vessel and manufactured from graphite, carbon, carbon/carbon
composites, ceramics, or certain matrix composites. The rules shall
apply to non-metallic components as dened above. The rules shall
not apply to graphite fuel elements or assemblies, bushings, bear-
ings, seals, blanket materials, instrumentation, or components inter-
nal to the reactor other than those dened above. It is assumed that
these rules will eventually be published as Section III, Division 5.
Section III has also established a Special Working Group on Code
Consolidation. This committee is considering ways to simplify
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:59 PM Page 609
610 Chapter 33
Section III, Division 1. Some of the proposals include eliminating NC-
3200, Class 2 vessels Designed by Analysis; deleting Subsection ND,
Class 3 components, and combining it with Subsection NC; combining
Subsection NE with either NB or NC; and simplifying Subsection NF
by letting it cover only Plate and Shell Type supports, which require
analysis, replacing Linear Type supports with the AISC specication
N-690; and removing Standard supports and replacing those rules with
MSS SP-54, as currently permitted by Code Case N-500. These pro-
posals are still under consideration, and progress is slow.
It is evident that nuclear power is not yet ready to reach its
nadir, and may really be approaching its zenith.
This chapter has attempted to provide a summary of the early
Codes to which a majority of todays operating plants have been
committed. Throughout the chapter, the message for the reader to
bear in mind is not to overlook the original Construction Code.
Even when it is not used for procurement, the original Code
establishes the requirements that must be met, and can be used to
justify use-as-is dispositions.
Another message is that the user can utilize later editions and
addenda in part, or in their entirety. When the later is the case, all
related requirements must still be met, and the Enforcement and
Regulatory Authorities must accept the selection for this change
prior to its implementation.
Globalization is an intense activity in the ASME Codes and
Standards, and the Codes and Standards team is busily engaged in
meeting the present and future needs of their users.
1. Green, A. M. Jr., A History of the ASME Boiler Code, The American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1955.
2. Bressler, M. N., A History of ASME Design Rules for Valves,
Chapter 5, Paper No. 6, Pressure Vessels and Piping: Design
Technology1982A Decade of Progress, The American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1982.
3. Hyatt, D. R., and Huber, K. A., Development of ASME Code Rules
for Pumps in Nuclear Service, Chapter 5, Paper No. 7, Pressure
Vessels and Piping: Design Technology1982A Decade of Progress,
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1982.
4. Langer, B. F. (Ed.), Criteria of Section III of the ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code for Nuclear Vessels, The American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1964.
5. Langer, B. F. (Ed.), Criteria of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code for Design by Analysis in Sections III and VIII, Divison 2, The
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1969.
6. Cross, W., The Code, an Authorized History of the ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code, The American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, New York, 1990.
7. Sage, L., Section XIThen and Now, Codes and Standards and
Applications for High-Pressure Equipment, PVP-Vol. 238, The
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, p. 109, 1992.
8. Hedden, Owen F., Changing Priorities of a Nuclear Code
Subcommittee, PVP-Vol. 259, The American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, p. 133.
9. Deardorff, A. F., Lapides, M. L., and Riccardella, P. C., Changing
Priorities for Nuclear Component Fatigue Evaluation, Codes and
Standards and Applications for Design and Analysis of Pressure
Vessel and Piping Components, PVP-Vol. 2101, The American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, p. 69, 1991.
10. Metrow, B., Changing Priorities of the Enforcement Authority
Within the ASME Code Section XI System, PVP-Vol. 2101, The
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, p. 99, 1991.
11. Gimple, R. E., Restructuring of the Repair and Replacement Rules in
Section XI, Codes and Standards and Applications for High-
Pressure Equipment, PVP-Vol. 238, The American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, p. 115, 1992.
ASME_Ch33_p583-028.qxd 2/20/09 3:59 PM Page 610